Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.49 seconds)

Mathuradas Vassanji And Anr. vs Tulsidas Damodar Ganatra on 5 October, 1949

As the observations of Shah J. in Gopal Anant's case were mere obiter, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court felt himself bound to follow the decision of Bavdekar J. Accordingly he held that he had no alternative but to stay execution of the warrant of possession until the suit for compensation for trespass intended to be filed by the opponent was disposed of. He accordingly directed that the execution be stayed pending the disposal of the suit by the Bombay City Civil Court. It is against this order that the applicant trustees came in revision. The revision application came on for hearing before Shah J. The advocates at the bar inform us that this application was not argued on merits before the learned Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kallappa Shivappa Chaugule vs K.V. Bawa Tobbacco Shop on 14 September, 1955

3. Mr. Sukthankar for the petitioner contends that if the plaintiff had failed to file the extracts from his account books under Order 7, Rule 17, Civil P. C., the only penalty which could be imposed on the plaintiff was not to allow the said documents to be produced at a later stage of the hearing of the suit. That appears to be clear from the provisions contained in Order 7, Rules 17 and 18. If an authority were necessary in support of this proposition, reference, may be made to the decision -- 'Gopal v. Vishnu', 22 Bom 971 (A).
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1