Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-16-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom459; (1956)58BOMLR3; ILR1956Bom100
..... between merchants inter se and between them and their constituents'. clause 3(g) likewise provides: 'in case of mutual disputes arising between merchants in the aforesaid business to act as mediators or arbitrators between the members of the chamber and their constituents in all sales and purchases and in all matters of difference or disputes arising between the members of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-17-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom129
dixit, j.1. one chanbasappa sangappa deshmukh, a wealthy inamdar, was a resident of kesapur in the muddebhihal taluka of the bijapur district, in respect of a deshmukh vatan which is known as 'talikote paraganna vatan' he was owner of two entire villages of kesapur and hagargund. he was also owner of lands known as 'chavrat lands' in 43 villages in different taluks of the district. he was also the holder of a cash allowanceof rs. 481/- which was received from differenttaluka treasuries. besides these properties, hewas owner of the immoveable property consistingof goudki (patilki) lands, government lands, devasthan lands, wadas, houses and open sites. likewise, he was owner of considerable moveable property. all this property was in his possession and enjoyment until his death in 1944. chanbasappa was a much married man, having had no fewer than six wives. he died on 8-1-1944, sonless, leaving him surviving three widows, nagamma, guramma and venkamma and two widowed daughters, shivalingamma and neelamma, children of chanbasappa from a predeceased wife of his. neelamma, one of the two widowed daughters, lived with chanbasappa. on 30-1-1944 nagamma, the senior widow, took melappa, her sister's son, in adoption as a son to her deceased husband. nagamma had been married in 1926 and chanbasappa had executed in her favour an authority to adopt, in 1927. it appears that the plaintiff i.e. nagamma, guramma and venkamma lived together in the house or wada after the death of chanbasappa .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-08-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Bom18; (1956)58BOMLR217; ILR1956Bom427
1. this revisional application arises from debt adjustment proceedings and it raises a short question of limitation. the property in suit consists of two survey nos. 186 and 187. the opponent alleged that these two fields had been conveyed to the two petitioners respectively by way of security for a loan borrowed by his grandfather jairam. he accordingly claimed adjustment of the said debt and asked for the possession of the two lands.the petitioners denied this allegation and claimed absolute tide to the properties. the evidence disclosed that there was no registered document in respect of either transfer. a mutation entry of the year 1911, which was produced however showed that survey no, 186 had been sold by an oral sale by jairam to the father of creditor 1 for rs. 500/-. . the said entry similarly showed an oral sale to creditor 2 in respect of survey no. 187.the entry did not indicate the amount of consideration for the said transaction. the opponent stated in his evidence that the allegations made by him in regard to the nature of the transaction were based upon information received by him from his mother. at the elate of the application his mother was dead.the learned trial judge held that oral transfers, which were invalid could not attract the provisions of section 24 of r. a. d. r. act. these oral transfers made the creditors chargeholders and since the transactions had taken place before 1911 the title of the chargeholders had become complete so that it was not .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-29-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom93; (1955)57BOMLR1015; ILR1955Bom1059
chagla, c.j.1. this is an, appeal by an insolvent who was adjudicated as such by mr. justice desai, and the few facts which are to be appreciated in order to understand the contention put forward by mr. bhabha are these. an 'ex parte' decree was passed against, the appellant in favour of the respondents on 12-7-1952. on 10-3-1954, the respondents took out an insolvency notice which was founded on this judgment debt. on 5-5-1954, the appellant took out a notice of motion to set aside the insolvency notice. that motion was dismissed by the insolvency judge on 8-12-1954. the appellant preferred an appeal to this court on 10-12-1954, and that appeal was dismissed on 18-3-1955. on 28-3-1955, the respondents presented a petition for adjudicating the appellant insolvent and this petition was founded on the act of insolvency committed by the appellant in not complying with the insolvency notice. on this petition the learned judge made the order of adjudication on 19-7-1955, and that is the order which is being challenged in appeal, and the very short point that arises is whether the petition is presented within three months from the commission of the act of insolvency. in order that the petition should be well founded it must be presented within three months from an act of insolvency, and it is not disputed that if the petition is not so presented, then it is bad and the order of adjudication made thereon cannot stand. 2. now, in the insolvency notice which was issued by the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-28-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom499; (1956)58BOMLR137; ILR1956Bom178; 30ITR57(Bom)
chagla, c.j.1. a notice of motion has been taken out by the assessee in this reference for directing the tribunal to raise an additional question of law. and a preliminary objection is taken by mr. joshi on behalf of the commissioner that the notice of motion is barred by limitation.2. the order in respect of which the additional question of law is sought was passed on 22-12-1954 and the order was served upon the assessee on 11-1-1955, and the notice of motion is taken out on 25-7-1955. clearly the notice of motion has been taken out more than six months after the service of the order and mr. joshi's contention is that the period of limitation is laid down in section 66(2) and by reason of that period of limitation the notice of motion is barred.3. section 66c2) deals with a case where the appellate tribunal refuses to state a case on the ground that no question of law arises, and it gives a right to the assessee or the commissioner, as the case may be, to apply to the high court, and if the high court is not satisfied as to the correctness of the decision of the appellate tribunal the high court may require the appellate tribunal to state the case and refer it; and this power can only be exercised within six months from the date on which he, i.e., either the assessee or the commissioner, is served with the notice of the refusal.4. the contention of mr. palkhiwalla is that section 66(2) only applies where the appellate tribunal refuses to state a case in the first instance, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-13-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom598
gajendragadkar, j.1. this is an appeal by the plain-tiffs against the order passed by the learned judge of the city civil court refusing to grant an injunction as prayed by them. it appears that between the plaintiffs and the defendants two proceedings are at present pending. the respondents have filed a petition in the city civil court on 23-6-1955.this petition has been filed under section 5, arbitration (protocol and convention) act 6 of 1937. the respondents' case is that a foreign award has been validly made between them and the appellants and they want the city civil court to pass a decree in terms of this award. while the petition was pending in the trial court, the appellants filed their suit no. 2554 of 1955.in this suit fine appellants in substance contend that a decree in terms of the foreign award should not be passed and they have made several allegations in support of this prayer. it is a suit filed to obtain a permanent injunction restraining the respondents irani taking any further steps in the matter of obtaining a decree in terms of the foreign award.alter this suit was filed by the appellants, they took out a notice of motion and they urged that pending the final decision of this suit the respondents should be restrained making any further progress with their petition. this notice of motion was dismissed by the learned trial judge and the appellants have come to this court in the present appeal against the said dismissal of the notice of motion.2. mr. lam .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-18-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom106; (1955)57BOMLR1122
gajendragadkar, j. 1. is the appellant's claim that the insolvency notice which has been served on him should be set aside on the ground that he has a counterclaim which exceeds the decretal amount ordered to be paid by him justified under rule 52b(5)(b) of the rules framed by this court under the presidency towns insolvency act, 1909? that is the short question which arises in the present appeal. this question arises in this way. it appears that the appellant, the respondent and another were partners of madhubar pictures, which was a firm dealing in the business of film production. on 31-5-1950, the appellant retired from this partnership and a formal deed of dissolution was drawn up. under this deed of dissolution the appellant promised to pay the continuing partners rs. 30,000/- and agreed that the assets of the partnership should likewise remain with them. in consideration for this promise, the continuing partners undertook the liability to payall debts due by the partnership including theamount of income-tax payable by the firm on orup to 31-5-1950. as often happens, neither partyto this agreement appeared to be anxious to fulfil his part of the contract. the appellant failedto pay the whole of the amount of rs. 30,000/-and a suit had to be brought against him to recover the amount due. a decree was passed against the appellant on 10-4-1951 for rs. 30,000/-. under this decree the appellant made several payments from 4-8-1951 to 15-7-1952. rs. 7,613-4-0, however, still .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom596
1. this is an appeal against the order passed by the learned city civil court judge dismissing the notice of motion taken out by the appellant to bet aside an ex parte decree passed against him in a summary suit under the provisions of order 37.this notice of motion was rejected on the ground that the conduct of the defendant throughout the proceedings in the trial court showed that he was only bidding for time and that he was really not prevented from taking part in the proceedings by any genuine or sufficient reason. the learned judge has also found that the defendant was disposing of his properties presumably with a view to make the execution of the decree more difficult. he was in fact not satisfied with the 'bona fides' of the defendant.2. this summary suit was filed on 13-11-1954. in this suit the plaintiff claimed rs. 13,000/- on a writing executed on 7-8-1954 and two dishonoured cheques. summons was served on the defendant at byadgi and on 11-4-1955 he appeared by mr. malimath. it would appear that there was some talk between the defendant on the one hand and damodar and shivappa on the other and some negotiations for compromise were set afoot.whether these negotiations began at the instance of the plaintiff or the defendant is a matter en which the parties are not agreed. the plaintiff alleged that the negotiations commenced at the initiative of the defendant himself and since the defendant did not come to bombay any time to show his bona fides in the matter the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-30-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom38; (1955)57BOMLR979; ILR1955Bom941
chagla, c. j.1. this is an appeal against a judgment of coyajee j. by which he granted relief to the official assignee on a notice of motion taken out toy him. it appears that one daulatram gave notice of suspension of payment on 2-8-1951. on 9-8-1951, the creditors presented a petition for adjudication and daulatram was adjudicated insolvent on 21-8-1951, and the official assignee is the assignee of his effects.now, prior to the petition and prior to the notice of suspension given by daulatram, an agreement was entered into on 17-5-1951, betweenthe insolvent and the appellants messrs. m.s: kumar and co. by this agreement the insolvent gave on lease -- to use the language of the agreement -- certain machinery for dyeing, bleaching and printing to the appellants on a monthly tenancy commencing from 1-7-1951, and the lessees agreed to pay rs. 500 per month as rent. by this agreement the lessor agreed not to demand possession of the property so long as the lessees carried out the conditions of the agreement. pursuant to this agreement the appellants went into possession and used the machinery and on 30-8-1951, the official assignee gave a notice to the appellants to hand over this machinery to him as representing the insolvent. he gave them a month's time and took out the notice of motion on 26-9-1951, on which coyajee j. has made the order.by this notice of motion he claimed a declaration that the agreement dated 17-5-1951, was void and no interest in the property passed to the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-06-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom354; 1956CriLJ701
shah, j.1. manganlal chunilal bogawat is carrying on business in ahmednagar as a tailor. the town of ahmednagar is served by the ahmednagar electric supply co. ltd., by supplying electric energy for lighting purposes and for motive power for mechanical and other uses: the ahmednagar electric supply co. ltd., has its head office to bombay and has a local manager stationed in ahmednagar.the company supplies electric energy to consumers for lighting purposes as well as for motive power for other uses. the accused bogawat had obtained two separate connections in his shop with the service of the company. one was a connection for lighting purposes and the other was for use as motive power and heating.on 8-1-1953, two employees of the company, pardeshi and bhingardive went to the shop of bogawat at about 7-15 p.m. and checked the two meters which were fixed one above the other, one for the lighting circuit and the other for the motive power circuit. they noticed, that all the lights in the shop were on. the meter for lighting service was not in motion and the main switch for lighting service was on the off position. they also noticed that the meter for the motive, power service was in motion and the main switch for that service was on and that the electric iron was not being used. it became apparent to the employees of the company that the motive power circuit was being used for lighting purposes by means of some temporary connection. panchas were accordingly seat for and a .....Tag this Judgment!