Search results
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.
Dec 1, 2021 · In 1934, the plaintiff (Mr. Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar) and the BMC had a lease agreement for a period of 999 years, whereby BMC gave the plaintiff a particular piece of land in exchange for the lease amount. The defendant (Mr. Moreshwar Madan Mantri) then asked the plaintiff to transfer the benefit of that lease to him. This would consequently ...
This is a suit by the plaintiff to enforce an indemnity. It seems that in the year 1934 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay for the lease of a plot of land bearing No. 226A of the Dadar Matunga Estate for a term of 999 years.
The synopsis of the case can be considered in the manner that it was meant to be a simple case of contract breach or an Indian contract that can be claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant. The case moved to the court with simple argument and civil litigation that educated in a matter
Jan 8, 2024 · CASE BRIEF. 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.
This case analysis discusses the 1942 case Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri. It involves a dispute over land that was mortgaged multiple times by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant to pay suppliers.
People also ask
What is the case law of Moreshwar Madan?
What is Gajanan Moreshwar parelkar V Madan Mantri?
Who vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri?
What was a charge against Keshavdas Mohandas?
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.
