Sitaram Apaji Kode vs Shridhar Anant Prabhu And Ors. on 15 January, 1903
Equivalent citations: (1904)ILR 27BOM189
JUDGMENT
Chandavarkar, J.
1. The principal question
recognising the
paramount character of the equity of redemption. In Bapuji Apaji v. Sonavaraji
Marvati [I.L.R. 11 Bom. 231], Westropp
plaintiffs were the owners and sole partners of the firm of Apaji Kashinath. They were also partners in the defendant firm of Ganesh Hari Narkar ... three, other partners besides themselves.
Between 1891 and 1896, the firm of Apaji Kashinath advanced money to the firm of Ganesh Hari Narkar, which latter
Justice Bhashyam Aiyangar in this case has been followed in Sitaram Apaji Kode v. Shridhar Anant Prabho 27 B. 292 and apparently quoted with approval
Tukaram v. Chinto Sakharam, I Bom. H.C. Rep. 199
(1864), Bapuji Apaji v. Senavaraji Marvadi, I.L.R. 11 Bom.
231, Ramasami Sastrigal ... recognising the paramount
character of the equity of redemption. In Bapuji Apaji v.
Sonavaraji Marvati(5), Westropp, C.J., has elaborately
considered the relevant aspects
this Court in Bapu Apaji Potdar v. Kashinath Sadoba 39 Ind. Cas. 103 : 41 B. 438 : 19 Bom. L.R. 100 (F.B.), to defeat
have precluded themselves from interfering. The rule laid down, in Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal, 10 Bom HCR 351 was approved.
"If the nearest
