Mumbai Court July 1957 Judgments
Corporation of the City of Nagpur Through the Chief Executive Officer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom297; (1958)60BOMLR94; ILR1958Bom354
ORDER1. This is an application for revision under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act and is preferred by the Corporation of the City of Nagpur. The application arises out of proceedings taken for the acquisition of a certain area of land from a field Servey No. 163 of Nagpur which belonged to the non-applicant Narendrakumar. The notification under which the acquisition was made was dated 10-8-1955 and the public purpose notified therein was 'for construction of road from Chhindwara road to village Takli'. In the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, the Corporation was permitted to intervene under the provision of Section 50(2) for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. It appears that after the award was made on 28-4-1956, the Corporation was dissatisfied with the award and, therefore, applied under Section 18 of the Act of the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected that application in li...
Tag this Judgment!Bhailalbhai Tulsidas Patel Vs. Shankerbhai Kilabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom16; (1957)59BOMLR1081; ILR1958Bom273
Dixit, J. 1. The applicant is the owner of five lands situate in a village, called Sarsa in the Anand Taluka of the Kaira District. Opponent No. 1 to the petition was a tenant of these lands and it is the applicant's case that opponent No. 1 sub-let these lands to opponent No. 2 sometime in 1948-49. It is also the applicant's case that he came to know of the sub-letting sometime in November, 1955 and so he gave a notice to opponent No. 1 terminating the tenancy. He then filed this application on the 9th May, 1956 to obtain possession from opponents Nos. 1 and 2. Opponent No. 1 the tenant admitted the claim but stated that he and opponent No. 2 were jointly cultivating the lands and giving a crop share to the applicant also jointly, The claim of the applicant was resisted by opponent No. 2.2. Upon the evidence adduced before him, the Mamlatdar held that the suit brought by the application was barred by time and accordingly the suit came to be dismissed. From the order of dismissal an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Major E.G. Barsay Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR159
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded] : Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected counsel to address us on law points at. the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first, law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnam Singh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legali...
Tag this Judgment!Major E.G. Barsay and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1144
ORDERGokhale, J.1. (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded;)Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected Counsel to address us on law points at the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnamsingh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legality of the ent...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Sitaram Vs. Manjibai Hirachand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom292; (1958)60BOMLR377; ILR1958Bom820
J.C. Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant for a decree in ejectment. The plaintiff is the owner of a shop on the western side of her house on nazul plot no. 459, sheet no. 25-B at Khamgoan. The defendants are the plaintiff's monthly tenants. The plaintiff applied for and obtained from the Rent Controller permission to serve a notice in ejectment upon the defendants under clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. On 21st July 1950 the plaintiff served a notice in ejectment on the defendants. By the notice, the plaintiff called upon the defendants to vacate and deliver possession by 22nd August 1950. After the notice was served the defendants by postal money order sent plaintiff rent for the period between 22nd July 1950 to 22nd October 1950. The rent was received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then served another notice on the defendants calling on or about 24th February 1951 asking them to vacate the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Laxman More Vs. Narhar Mahadeo Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1078
Dixit, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it arises out of an application made by opponent No. 1 to obtain possession of a field bearing Survey No. 57 for non-payment of rent.2. Opponent No. 1 is the owner of the field in question which was let out to the present applicant. In respect of the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 the applicant made defaults whereupon opponent No. 1 made an application for possession under Section 29 read with Section 14 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The learned Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed the application and made an order evicting the applicant from the land in suit. There was an appeal to the Prant Officer and the learned Prant Officer allowed the tenant's appeal, reversed the order of the officer and directed that the possession of the suit land should be handed over to the tenant. From the appellate order an application in revision was preferred before the Bombay Revenue Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Poona Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankar Ramkrishna Jabade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR25
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This revision application raises a rather interesting question as to the assessment of property on the rateable value. It appears that a cinema theatre was let out by the opponents on a rental oil Rs. 883-8-0 a month. The cinema theatre also contained articles of furniture and among them mostly chairs intended to be used for the purpose of the theatre by the audience which visited the theatre, and in the lease the rental of this furniture was valued at Rs. 225 per month. The Collector and Assessor of Taxes assessed the annual letting value of this property at Rs. 9,540 and in arriving at this figure he took into consideration the total rent including the rent of the furniture. The assessee appealed to the Small Causes Court, and the Court confirmed the assessment. There was a second appeal to the District Court at Poona, and the learned Assistant Judge came to the conclusion that in fixing the annual letting value, the value of the furniture should be excluded, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Sitaram and ors. Vs. Sakharam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom244; (1958)60BOMLR82
Shah, J. 1. This second appeal raises a question as to the true interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Act 30 of 1956). The following genealogy may usefully be referred to for understanding the nature of the dispute between the parties: MAHADU | ------------------------------------------- | | | Sitaram Sakharam Ganpat | (plff.1) | -------------------- | | | | Motiram Ramkrishna ------------------ (plff. 2) (plff. 3) | | Sampat Tulsi =Thunki | LaxmanSampat died on 10-2-1944, leaving him surviving his wife Thunki, his son Laxman and a sister Tulsa. Laxman died on 3-12-1944, and the property of Sampat then devolved upon Thunki. On 23-12-1944 Thunki executed a deed of gift whereby the property in dispute in this litigation was gifted to Tulsa. On 8-6-1945, Thunki contracted remarriage. The plaintiffs who are the uncle and paternal cousins of Sampat filed Civil Suit No. 120-A of 1949 in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Class II, Akola, against Tulsa and defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya Vs. Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom491; (1958)60BOMLR254; ILR1958Bom250
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal of the plaintiff and it arises out of a decree of dismissal passed by Mr. Justice S.T. Desai in Suit No. 376 of 1956 filed on the Original Side of the High Court of Bombay. The appeal raises a question of construction under the Companies Act, 1956, and the question arises in this way.2. The first defendant company Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Limited is a public limited company. Before it was incorporated into a public limited company, it was a private limited company. The promoters of the private limited company were the plaintiff Madanlal, defendant No. 2 Nanasaheb, defendant No. 3 Kundalik and Kasturchand, the father of defendant Nos. 7 to 10. The private limited company was incorporated in 1939 and later converted into a public limited company, as I have just said, in the year 1944 by reason of a settlement which was arrived at in the three suits pending in the High Court between Messrs. A. H. Bhiwandiwala and Co., the Managing Directors of the Company, ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Parsottam Bhikhabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR153
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Mr. Justice Chainani and Mr. Justice Palnitkar have referred the following question to this full bench:Whether the statement made by a deceased person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his death, is inadmissible in evidence, if there is no record of the questions put to the deceased and the answers given by the deceased to each of those questions.The question came to be referred under the following circumstances. An appeal was preferred by an accused who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge of committing murder of one Gajri on July 23, 1956. That appeal came before Mr. Justice Chainani and Mr. Justice Palnitkar. The principal evidence in that case was the dying declaration made by Gajri and this declaration was recorded by the Taluka Magistrate, Navsari, on July 23, 1956. The declaration was a continuous statement and there was no record of the questions put by the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »