Skip to content


Sevadasji Chandradasji Vs. the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number O.C.J. Appeal No. 49 of 1925
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Bom42; (1925)27BOMLR1216; 94Ind.Cas.654
AppellantSevadasji Chandradasji
RespondentThe Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay
Excerpt:
high cowl rules (o. s.), rule 786 - appeal-security for costs.;where the appellant was a sadhu and left unpaid rs. 26358 odd party aid party costs taxed for the respondent in the court below, and his attorneys got themselves discharged on the ground that they were not placed in funds for prosecuting the appeal, the court of appeal demanded a security for rs. 5000, in addition to the usual security lodged by him along with his appeal, for the costs of the respondent. - - 1. we think that this is an exceptional case such as is contemplated in the judgment in ahmed bin shaik essa kaliffa v.norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. we think that this is an exceptional case such as is contemplated in the judgment in ahmed bin shaik essa kaliffa v. shaik essa bin kaliffam.2. there will be an order on the motion that the appellant should deposit within one month security to the extent of rs. 5,000, in addition to the security already deposited for the respondent's coats. costs will be costs in the appeal.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. We think that this is an exceptional case such as is contemplated in the judgment in Ahmed bin Shaik Essa Kaliffa v. Shaik Essa bin Kaliffam.

2. There will be an order on the motion that the appellant should deposit within one month security to the extent of Rs. 5,000, in addition to the security already deposited for the respondent's coats. Costs will be costs in the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //