Mumbai Court November 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramprasad Haripal Vs. Manohar Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom300; (1958)60BOMLR547; ILR1958Bom751
1. This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the lower appellate Court granting a decree for ejectment against the appellant. The undisputed facts are these: Under a rent note Exhibit P-1, dated 21-11-1949 the appellant took on lease certain property belonging to the respondent. This lease was for the period beginning from 22-10-49 and ending on 22-10-1950. The property consisted of an open site on which a house was actually standing at the date of the aforesaid lease. It is situate in the town of Ghatanji to which the Rent Control Order of 1949 applied. At the end of the period of lease the respondent served a notice upon the appellant terminating the lease but before serving that notice he did not obtain the permission of the Rent Controller. The appellant did not vacate the site and the house and therefore the respondent instituted a suit for ejectment. In that suit he claimed ejectment of the appellant only from the site and said that the super-structure standing there...
Yeshvantarao Balwantrao Chavan Vs. K.T. Mangalmurti and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom397; (1958)60BOMLR353; ILR1958Bom732
Dixit, J.1. This Special civil application raises an important question under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the question arises in this way.2. An election to the Bombay Legislative Assembly from an Assembly Constituency known as the Karad North Assembly Constituency was to be held on 2-5-1957. Before 29-1-1957 five candidates including the present petitioner and the second respondent had filed their nomination papers and 29-1-1957 was the last date for filing nominations. All these nominations were scrutinized and accepted by the Returning Officer as valid nominations on 1-2-1957. It appears that one of the five candidates withdrew his candidature before the date fixed for withdrawal and then the Returning Officer published a list of contesting candidates under Section 38 of the Representation of the People Act. There is HO dispute that that list included the names of the petitioner, the second respondent and two other candidates viz., Mahomed Abdulla Aw...
Jana and anr. Vs. Parvati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom346; (1958)60BOMLR553
1. This second appeal raises a vexed question of considerable importance and the question relates to the construction of the principal provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, which introduced important and for-reaching changes in the lawof succession and did so in statutory language which has brought many a lawyer and Judge to a state of perplexity. The enactment wasobviously intended to give better rights to women by recognising their claim to fair and equable treatment in certain matters of succession but unfortunately the rules of devolution laid down in it are so penned that it his given rise to anomalies and a number of conundrums and an attempt to resolve any one difficulty hisoften caused misconceptions and equally great if not greater difficulties in other cases.2. Jana, the first defendant who is the first appellant before me, is the widow of one Gadi. Her son, Santosh, the plaintiff-respondent, and Gadi were prior to 23rd May, 1946 members of a joint Hin...
Vithoba Bhanji and ors. Vs. Vithal Sakroo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom270; (1958)60BOMLR605; ILR1958Bom656
S.P. Kotwal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain alienations were not binding upon the plaintiffs (the first and second respondents) who were revisioners entitled to the property of one Moti Patil. the suit was decreed by the trial court and the legal representatives of the alienee are the appellants. 2. In order to explain the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Moti Patil, of whose estate they claim to be reversioners, it is necessary to set forth the following genealogical tree :- PUNJOO (dead) | ------------------------------------------------------- | | | | zapri (d) Mt. Sagni=Moti=Rukh Kesheo (d) Raghu (d) | | | | --------------------- Mt. punal(d) | | | | Mohan Bapu (d) Dasru --------------- =Bega alias | | Gahena Vithal Santosh (plff.1) (plff. 2)The plaintiffs claimed that Moti Patil who was separate from his brothers died on 28-9-1912, leaving considerable movable and immovable property mentioned in Schedule A attached to the plai...
Mahadba Romaji Bidkar Vs. Shree Mahadoba Devasthan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR563
J.C. Shah, J.1. These are cross-appeals against the decree in Civil Suit No. 36 of 1946 of the file of the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Poona, The plaintiff, Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, filed Suit No. 36 of 1946 for a declaration that certain alienations of the lands described in the plaint by previous managers were void and that the lands were of the ownership of the Devasthan and for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of S. Nos. 240-A, 242, 243 and 244 from the Government of Bombay and for a decree for possession of S. No. 245 from the defendants and for costs of the suit from the defendants. Even though relief was claimed for possession of S. Nos. 240-A, 242, 243 and 244 against the Government of Bombay, in substance the plaintiff claimed the relief that the rent which was being paid for occupation of the lands by the Government should be paid to the plaintiff and after the land was vacated possession should be delivered to the Devasthan.2. In ...
Deorao Laxman Anande Vs. Keshav Laxman Borkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom314; (1958)60BOMLR217
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Surat, by which the election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay from the Mazagaon constituency, Greater Bombay, has been set aside, The election was held on 11-3-1957. There were two candidates contesting at this election; the appellant and the respondent. We have been informed at the Bar that four candidates had been duly nominated, but that after the nomination papers of the appellant and the respondent were held to be in order, the other candidates withdrew from the election. The appellant polled 22,914 votes, while the respondent obtained 14,885 votes. The appellant was, therefore, declared duly elected. The respondent thereafter submitted a petition challenging the election of the appellant, on the ground that the appellant, who is an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner, held an office of profit under the State of Bombay, by reason of his being an Insurance ...
Haji Fateh Mohammad Vs. Registrar, Public Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR237
Mudholkar, J.1. The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 33(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, for the contravention of the provisions of Section 13 thereof and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The only point taken is that the alleged trust not having been registered with the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, as Registrar of the public trust, but having been registered only with the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the wrong assumption that he was the Registrar of public trusts, the provisions of Sections 13 and 33 of the Act cannot apply.3. The contention of the applicant is correct. Reading the scheme of the Act it is clear that the obligation created by Section 13 of the Act for the depositing of trust monies in the bank applies only to the person who is the trustee of a public trust that is registered. That will be clear from the reference to the word 'Registrar' in Section 13 itself. No...
State Vs. Fundan Lakhanmal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR403; 1960CriLJ1186
Dixit, J.(1) These two matters raise a common question about the validity of S. 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the question arises in this way.(2) On the 10th of June, 1955 at about 6-30 P. M. four accused persons were believed to be in possession of 'takas' of 251 1/2 yards of cloth worth in all Rs. 503/- on a public thoroughfare near barrack No. 826, Section No. 17, Kalyan Camp No. 3, Ulhasnagar. The Police became suspicious, and when they saw the accused persons, they approached them. On being approached, the accused failed to account for their possession. It was alleged that under those circumstances, they had contravened S. 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The facts were explained to the accused and they were asked as to what they had to say about the facts alleged against them. In reply, they stated that they did not admit the facts as alleged against them. At this stage, their Advocate intervened and he contended that the did not admit the facts as alleged against th...
Dattatraya Awadaji Shinde Vs. S.V. Bhave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR210
Dixit, J.1. The petitioner in this case is one Dattatraya Awadaji Shinde who resides at Kasba Peth, Poona 2. He has two wives, one of whom is Kalawatibai and this Kalawatibai is a municipal school teacher. Elections to the Poona Municipal Corporation are to be held in November 1957 and the petitioner filed a nomination paper, offering himself as a candidate from Ward No. 11. The scrutiny of his nomination paper was made by the Municipal Commissioner of the Poona Municipal Corporation on October 25, 1957, and by an order made on the same date, he rejected the nomination under Rule 9 of the Election Rules, holding that the nomination paper filed by him was invalid. It is the correctness of this order which has been challenged by Mr. Chandrachud appearing for the petitioner upon this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The facts, as they appear in the order made by the Municipal Commissioner, are that the petitioner has two premises, in one of which his first wife lives, whi...
Narsinha Bhaskar Chitale Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR434
Miabhoy, J.1. This is an application under Section 435 Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioner Narsinha Bhaskar Chitale, who has been convicted by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Municipal Corporation, Poona, for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulte ration Act, 1954, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, and whose conviction has been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, who has reduced the sentence from Rs. 300 to Rs. 150.2. This revision petition raises a short question relating to the interpretation of the word 'butter' as used in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed by the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards, under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The facts leading tip to the present revision application are not in d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »