Yahoo India Web Search

Search results

  1. Moreshwar Madan. (1942) 44 BOMLR 703. (Section 124 of Indian Contract Act, when indemnity can be claimed) FACTS: Plaintiff (P) got a plot of land on lease from municipal corp. of Mumbai. P allowed Defendant (D) to erect building on that land.

  2. Bombay High Court. Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri on 1 April, 1942. Equivalent citations: (1942)44BOMLR703, AIR 1942 BOMBAY 302. JUDGMENT. Chagla. J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to enforce an indemnity.

  3. Dec 1, 2021 · Case Analysis: Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri A.I.R. 1942 Bom, 302. Parties Involved. Claimant/Plaintiff – Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar. Defendant – Moreshwar Madan Mantri. Sitting Judges – Justice M. C. Chagla.

  4. ABSTRACT. Contract act was usually formulated and implemented by the British in India, which was rather in for the rains to for the development of the legal system, and the society was modified in the course of time.

  5. Jan 8, 2024 · Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri on 1 April, 1942. Facts: 1. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay in 1934 to lease a plot of land (No. 226A of the Dadar Matunga Estate) for 999 years. 2.

  6. When the suit was called on, Mr. Tendolkar for the defendant admitted all the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and raised only two issues to the effect (1) whether the plaint discloses any cause of action and (2) whether the suit was premature.

  7. People also ask

  8. Feb 3, 2021 · Gajanan Moreshwar vs. Moreshwar Madan Mantri; Facts. In this case, Gajanan Mores was having land in Bombay but at a lease for a long period. Gajanan Moreshwar was transferred to Moreshwar Madan Mantri but for a limited period. M Madan started construction over the plot and ordered some material from K D Mohandass, when K D Mohandass asked for ...