Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Trikamdas Udeshi vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 19 November, 1953

Sholapur Municipal Corporation And ... vs Ramkrishna V. Relekar And Anr. on 15 February, 1968

12. The result may perhaps be unfortunate, for if the petitioner who had evaded the octroi duty is willing to pay the duty and a small penalty in addition, it would be possible to avoid subjecting him to the harassment of a criminal trial. It would, however, appear that under Clause (a) or Sub-section (1) of Section 481 of the Act, it is competent to the Commissioner to withdraw from the proceedings taken by him. If such an application is made by the Com-missioner, we have no doubt that it would be dealt with on the merits by the learned Magistrate. We might also draw attention to the observations made by Chief Justice Chagla in the case referred to above that practical difficulties which the Corporation may face by reason of the absence of powers to compound offences under the Act should be got over not by resorting to powers which the Municipality does not possess, but by the necessary amendment of the law."
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mangalore Catholic Co-Operative Bank ... vs M. Sundara Shetty on 10 December, 1987

In the case of TRIKAMDAS UDESHl v. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS the petitioner boarded a tram-car belonging to the BEST undertaking and got out at Bore Bunder without purchasing a ticket. He was thereupon called upon by the Traffic Supervisor to pay a sum of Rs.5/- as penalty. The petitioner paid the fine and obtained a receipt from the Supervisor. The receipt itself mentioned that the amount was paid to avoid proceedings in a Court of Law. His Lordship Justice Chagla (as he then was) held that the petitioner had paid the same in order to avoid a prosecution. He knew perfectly well that if he did not pay this sum of Rs.5/- he would have been prosecuted before a Magistrate. It was impossible to suggest that both the parties were so situated that the petitioner could have refused to pay the amount if he so desired. Their situation was unequal. The Municipality could have dragged the petitioner to a criminal Court ; there would have been publicity about the prosecution; the petitioner would have been convicted and would have been compelled to pay a fine. It was to escape these consequences that the petitioner paid the amount. As that was the position, the petitioner could not be said to be in 'pari delicto' with the Bombay Municipality in the question of the payment of Rs.5/-.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd vs M/S.Ananth Oil Extractions Ltd on 20 August, 2025

The above factors cannot have much relevance. The witness to the sale deed, even if examined, cannot speak about the agreement between the parties regarding the appropriation of the sale proceeds towards the loan accounts. There is no dispute regarding the total consideration in the sale deed. The trial court had placed reliance on the decision in Atlas Express (supra) and Trikamdas Udeshi (supra) to find that when amount is not R.F.A. No.347 of 2005 2025:KER:62522 -34- legally payable and if the plaintiff is required to pay it under compulsion, the plaintiff is entitled to repayment unless the defendant can show that they had right to recover it under law. The reliance placed is not justified. This is not a case where any additional sum was demanded at the time of registration of the sale deed. The agreement for sale did not speak of any appropriation. The sale deed was executed for the consideration which was agreed upon. The agreement for sale and the sale deed are not agreements relating to the closure of the loan accounts of the plaintiff and its sister concern and the only connection it has is that the sale consideration is by adjustment towards 4 loan accounts. There is no separate agreement regarding the said apportionment, entered into between the parties at any time before the sale deed executed in December 2000. Even the sale deed only says that the Bank is authorized to appropriate `170 lakhs of the sale consideration towards the loan of the plaintiff and the balance towards the loan of the sister concern. In the absence of any agreement regarding the closure of the account either as one-time settlement or otherwise, coupled with the fact that the loans of the plaintiff R.F.A. No.347 of 2005 2025:KER:62522 -35- were closed on the date of the sale deed and that of the sister concern were closed in February, 2021, it cannot be said that the sum of `175 lakhs were not legally payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. Admittedly, more amount was legally payable. Moreover, there is no pleading and proof regarding any unjust enrichment by the defendant or absence of unjust enrichment for the plaintiff if the plaint claim is allowed.
Kerala High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Mangalore Catholic Co-Operative Bank ... vs M. Sundara Shetty on 10 December, 1987

In the case of Trikamdas Udeshi v. Bombay Municipale Corporation, , the petitioner boarded a term-car belonging to the BET undertaking and got out a t Bori Bunder without purchasing a ticket. He wa thereupon called upon by the Traffic Supervisor to pay us of Rs. as penalty. The petitioner paid the fine and obtained a receipt form the supervisor. The receipt itself mentioned that the amount was paid to avoid proceedings in a court of law. His Lordship Justice Chagla (a he then was) held that the petitioner had paid the same in order to avoid a prosecution. He know perfectly well that if he did not pay this sum of R. 5, he would have been prosecuted before a magistrate. It was impossible to suggest that both the parties were so situated that the petitioner could have refused to pay the amount if he so desired. their situations was unequal. The municipality could have dragged the petitioner to a criminal court; there would have been publicity about the prosecution; the petitioner would have been convicted nd would have been compelled to pay a fine. It was to escape these consequences that the petitioner paid the amount. As that was the position, the petitioner could not be said to be in "pari delicto" with the Bombay Municipality on the question of the payment of Rs. 5.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1