Maruti Babaji Vadekar vs Ramchandra Balvant Punekar on 24 September, 1930
438 and Tayaballi Gulam Husein v. Atmaram Sakharam (1914) I.L.R. 88 Bom. 631, s.c. 16 Bom. L.R. 520.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)Documents citing
Tayabali Gulam Husein vs Atmaram Sakharam Vani on 24 March, 1914
Goyal Mg Gases Private Limited vs Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited (Ninl) & ... on 11 March, 2022
45. Thus, assuming any such debt existed, learned Counsel for the
respondents contend that MMTC was entitled to set off the said debt
against the amounts outstanding from NINL, relating to the working
capital and trade finance facilities extended by MMTC to NINL.
Reliance has been placed, for this principle, on the judgment of the
High Court of Bombay in Tayaballi Gulam Husein v. Atmaram
Sakharam22 and Addepalli Satyanarayanamurthy v. Vadlamannati
Venkateswararao23.
Chunilal Jivanlal Shah vs Pira Miyaji Ghanchi on 7 September, 1926
But certainly there is an important difference between the ratio decidendi in Toolsa Goolal's case and Tayaballi's case.
Shree Bajwa Ganesh Oil And Rice Pulse ... vs Parikh Occhavlal Amratlal on 30 September, 1955
In support of his argument Mr. Oza wanted to reply upon a decision of this Court in -- 'Tayabali Ghulam Hussein v. Atmaram Sakharam', AIR 1914 Bom 299 (A). I do not propose to consider the merits of this objection at this stage.
Addepalli Satyanarayanamurthy vs Vadlamannati Venkateswararao on 27 November, 1936
There is clear authority upon this point that in execution proceedings such matters can be gone into and that is Tayabali Ghulam Hussein v. Atmaram AIR 1914 Bom 299, and my attention has not been drawn to any case in which the principle laid down there has not been followed or has been dissented from. This civil revision petition must therefore be allowed and the case remanded to the Subordinate Court for disposal according to law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition.
1