Mumbai Court September 1954 Judgments
Chhotalal Ramdas Patel Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom433; (1955)57BOMLR748
ORDER1. This is a petition for an appropriate Writ, direction or order restraining the State of Bom-bay from enforcing a requisition order dated 5-3-1954. The order is made under Section 6 (4) (a), Bombay Land Requisition Act and contains a declaration that the premises specified in the order had become vacant in November 1952.2. The main ground on which the petition has been argued before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the inquiry which was held prior to the making of the declaration that the premises were vacant was of such a character as to amount to no inquiry it all, and the argument is that since the holding of an inquiry is a condition precedent to the making of such a declaration, the declaration made without such at inquiry is void. It has also been urged that the order of requisition was not served on the petitioner and therefore cannot bind him until it is properly served on him.3. Now, the provision for holding an inquiry is to be found in the proviso to Section 6 (...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kondaji Chimnaji Dhorge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR171
Gajendragadkar J.1. This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Additional Sessions-Judge, Poona, and it raises a short question under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The lands in question originally belonged to the undivided family consisting of Pandurang and his father. At the time of his father's death', Pandurang was a minor, and during his minority his uncle Kondaji managed his properties on his behalf. The lands in question have been let out to Vithal Ranguji for several years on oral tenancy. The rent due from the tenant was recovered by Kondaji in the past during the minority of Pandurang and it would appear that even after Pandurang became a major Kondaji still continued to manage the properties and to collect the rent from the tenant. On August 18, 1951, Kondaji passed a receipt to Vithal and the present proceedings have been commenced against Kondaji under the provisions of Section 81 of the Tenancy Act on the ground that the receipt which has ...
Tag this Judgment!Sabavva Kom Hanmappa Simpiger Vs. Basappa Andaneppa Chiniwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR261
Dixit, J.1. This second appeal raises a question under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The circumstances giving rise to the execution application in which the question arises are these.2. One Sabavva Kom Hanmappa Simpiger, a resident of Muddebihal in the Bijapur District, is the owner of a shop situated in the Muddebihal town. The owner let out the shop to the two defendants upon a lease which commenced on November 11, 1949. The period of the lease expired on November 10, 1950. The annual rent reserved was a sum of Rs. 450. The tenants did not vacate the shop in accordance with the terms of the rent note and so a dispute arose between the parties. On November 16, 1950, the dispute was referred to arbitration and the arbitrators (panchas) after hearing the contentions of the parties gave an award on November 17, 1950.3. A proceeding was then taken to file the award in the Court and the proceeding came to be numbered as Civil Suit No. 455 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhamandas Ramchand Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR938
Tendolkar J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the State of Bombay restraining them from enforcing an order of requisition dated February 24, 1954.2. The case of the petitioner is that one Miss Marsh was carrying on a guest and lodging house under the name and style of Marsh Guest House in flat No. 3 on the ground floor of a building known as Jenkins House at Henery Road, Colaba, By a deed of assignment dated October 6, 1951, the said Miss Marsh sold the said business for the petitioner together with its goodwill and tenancy rights for a consideration of Rs. 6,000. The petitioner himself took in boarders after he became the owner of the said boarding house and the flat was being used as a lodging house all along right upto the time when the order of requisition was made. It is the petitioner's contention that the flat having been used as a lodging house it did not constitute 'premises' within the meaning of the definition of that Word in the Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Kulinsinh Manibhai Seth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR259
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This application raises the question of the interpretation of Sub-section (3) of Section 82 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which is the applicant in the case before me, prepared an assessment list for the imposition of a special water rate for the year 1946-47, after following the regular procedure. After the assessment year commenced on April 1, 1946, Rule 336 of the Rules of the Ahmedabad Municipality was amended, and the amended rule came into force on July 1, 1946. Under the amended rule, the property of Mr. Seth (the opponent) became liable to the levy of special water rate. But no such special water rate could be imposed upon the property of Mr. Seth until the assessment list was amended. For this purpose a notice for the amendment of the assessment list was given as required by Section 82 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. It is not dear as to what was the precise period which was mentioned in the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawanbai Premabhai Vs. Bai Vahali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR250
Bavdekar, J 1. [His Lordship after narrating the facts proceeded.] The first point which is made by the learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the appellants, is that oral evidence was not admissible in order to show that the sale deed of October, 1944, was a nominal transaction and that the agreement between the parties was that it was not to be enforced against the plaintiff. Now, it appears to me that this evidence was admissible in order to show that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1, there was as a matter of fact no contract between the parties, and consequently no transfer either. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act has application when the terms of a contract, grant or other disposition of property among other things have been proved in accordance with Section 91, Section 91 makes inadmissible oral evidence of the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, which have been reduced ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Ransing Vs. Shankar Vithal Sape
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR254
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the decision of the Assistant Judge, Dhulia, dismissing the petitioner's petition challenging the election of opponent No. 1 as a member of the Municipal School Board of the Dhulia- Municipal Borough. The election took place on September 13, 1953, and the petitioner and opponent No. 1 stood for the election. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers the petitioner objected to the nomination of opponent No. 1 on the ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification. That objection was overruled and the Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper of opponent No. 1. The election was held on September 13, 1953, and opponent No. 1 was declared elected.2. Now, under the Bombay Primary Education Act, Section 4 deals with the constitution of school boards and Sub-section (1) provides:Each school, board shall consist of members not less than twelve and not more than sixteen in number.Sub-section (2) provides:...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Ramsukh Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom227; (1955)57BOMLR130; ILR1955Bom289
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a rather important question as to the validity of a notice issued under Section 34, Income-tax Act and also as to whether if such a notice is invalid it could be waived. The very few facts that are necessary to understand this contention are that the assessment year of the assessee is 1944-45 and that he was assessed on 4-12-1948, on an income of Rs. 6,484. The Income-tax Officer was then satisfied that some income had escaped assessment and he therefore issued a notice under Section 34 on 19-3-1949, The notice required the assessee to make a return by 25-3-1949. The assessee made a returns and he was assessed. He then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the first time he raised the contention that the notice issued under Section 34 was invalid and therefore the assessment must be set aside. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected his contention. He then went in appeal to the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I Vs. Ramsukh Motilal, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR54(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a rather important question as to the validity of a notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and also as to whether if such a notice is invalid it could be waived. The very few facts that are necessary to understand this contention are that the assessment year of the assessee is 1944-45 and that he was assessed on the 4th December, 1948, on an income of Rs. 6,484. The Income-tax Officer was then satisfied that some income had escaped assessment and he therefore issued a notice under section 34 on the 19th March, 1949. The notice required the assessee to make a return by the 25th Mach, 1949. The assessee made a return and he was assessed. He then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the first time he raised the contention that the notice issued under section 34 was invalid and therefore the assessment must be set aside. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected his...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Fakir Umar Dhanse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR243
Chainani, J.1. [After narrating the facts as above the judgment' proceeded:] In order to appreciate the arguments, which have been advanced in this appeal, it is necessary to mention the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Code. Clause (11) of Section 3 of the Code states that 'to hold land', or to be a 'landholder', or 'holder' of land means to be lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not Clause (12) defines 'holding' to mean a portion of land held by a holder. Clause (20) defines the word 'alienated' to mean transferred in so far as the rights of the State Government to payment of the rent or land revenue are concerned, wholly or partially, to the ownership of any person. The word 'occupant' is denned in Clause (16). This clause states that 'occupant' means a holder in actual possession of unalienated land, other than a tenant: provided that where the holder in actual possession is a tenant, the landlord or superior landlord, as the ease may be, sha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »