Mumbai Court July 1958 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.
Sonajee Krishnajee Majumdar Vs. Nathu Yadav Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR156
Vyas, J.1. This application is made by the petitioner Sonajee Krishnajee Mujumdar under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and herein the petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dated October 14, 1957, by which order the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Prant Officer dated May 31, 1957.2. The petitioner is the landlord owning S. No. 509/1 of village Mamurabad, Taluka Jalgaon, District East Khandesh. He filed an application under Section 29 of the Tenancy Act before the Extra Aval Karkun of Jalgaon for recovering possession of this land upon the ground that the tenant had committed three defaults in the payment of rent. He alleged before the Extra Aval Karkun in his application under Section 29 that the tenant had failed to pay rent for the years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. The Extra Aval Karkun came to the conclusion that the tenant had paid rent for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54, that even for the year 1954-55 the rent had been paid by th...
Marzban Rustomji Vs. Khushalbhai Pitambar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR294
Vyas, J.1. This is an application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Marzban Rustomji, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of an order made by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal on February 3, 1958, by which order the Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Prant Officer on October 21, 1957. The circumstances under which this application arises may be briefly stated:2. The petitioner-landlord let out his lands, comprising two survey numbers, being S. No. 409 admeasuring 7 acres 12 gunthas and S. No. 410/2 admeasuring 2 acres 25 gunthas, of Olpad, to opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under a registered lease dated August 13, 1942. On December 20, 1956, the petitioner served opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with a notice under Section 31 of the Tenancy Act, asking the opponents to quit S. No. 410/2. The ground upon which the petitioner required the opponents to hand over possession of S. No. 410/2 to him was that he (the petitioner) bona fide requir...
Yadaorao Hanumantrao Deshmukh Vs. the Bombay Revenue Tribunal at Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom109; (1959)61BOMLR213; ILR1959Bom613
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather important question as to the jurisdiction of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal arises in this Full Bench, and the few facts, which have to be stated in order to understand what the contention is, are that certain Patels were appointed under the Berar Land Revenue Code. The relevant Act is the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law of 1900, and the Patels that used to be appointed under this Act were either Patels who had certain Watan rights or Patels who were appointed ad hoc. This was continued under the subsequent Madhya Pradesh Laws till we come to the Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code (II of 1955) and that law abolished the system of the appointment of these Patels. When we turn to the Code, Section 214 provides:'At the end of one year from the date appointed for the coming into force of this Code or on any earlier date which the State Government may, by notification, specify, the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, shall stand repealed and any right or claim to con...
Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. the Nagpur Electric Light and Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom498; (1958)60BOMLR1446; ILR1959Bom592
Mudholkar, J. 1, This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd., respondent in this petition, directing it to restore immediately the supply of electrical energy to the public lamps in the City of Nagpur.2. The facts which are relevant and are admitted by the parties are briefly these: The respondent Company holds a licence under which it used to generate electricity and supply it to the former Municipal Committee at Nagpur and to the public at large. In March 1951, the respondent Company shopped generating electricity because the Khaperkheda Power House which is managed by the State Electricity Board, started supplying electricity to the respondent Company in that year. Therefore, as from the year 1951 the respondent Company is only distributing electricity within the limits of the City of Nagpur.3. The first agreement between the Nagpur Municipal Committee and the respondent concerning t...
Dhundiraj Jayaram MaraThe Vs. Dhondu Anaji Pilankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom319; (1958)60BOMLR1393; ILR1959Bom590
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a more extreme case than the one we were considering in the previous Full Bench case, where an attempt is made by the tenant to avail himself of the proviso of Section 43C of the Tenancy Act. The few facts here are that the landlord terminated the tenancy on the 18th December 1953 and filed a suit in the Civil Court for ejectment on the 18th August, 1954. A decree was passed on the 22nd April 1955 by which the landlord was given possession. The landlord executed the decree and a warrant for possession was issued in his favour on the 23rd April 1955, and on the very next day he obtained possession. Then, after the amendment came into force, the tenant applied to the Prant Officer under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act claiming possession from the landlord on the ground that he was a trespasser. That application was rejected by the Prant Officer. There was a revision application to the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the decision of the Prant Office...
State Vs. R.M. Shah and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC683(Bom)
Patel, J.1. These appeals are brought by the State from the order of acquittal made by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, for an offence under the Sales Tax Act and the Sales Tax Ordinance, one of 1946 and the other of 1952. It was alleged that the two accused persons, Rasiklal Manilal Shah and Navinchandra Ratilal were the partners of a firm named M/s. R. M. Shah & Co., doing business at 135 Masjid Bunder Road, Bombay 3. It was alleged that they were registered as dealers under the Registration Certificate No. BB-1634, dated 21st September, 1946, which is exhibited in the case as Ex. 1. 2. It was alleged that under section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act read with rule 22 made under the Bombay Sales Tax Ordinance return was required to be submitted within a certain date of each quarter ending on 31st January, 1953, and 31st March, 1953. It was stated that though it was required to be furnished within one month from the end of the quarter, the returns for bo...
Patel Maganbhai Jethabhai Vs. Somabhai Sursang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1383
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Very few cases that arise under the Tenancy Act are easy of solution and this case is no exception to that rule. The few facts which require to be stated in order to understand and appreciate the question that arises for our determination are that the Tenancy Act of 1948 was applied to Baroda on July 30, 1949, and admittedly opponent No. 1 before us was a tenant recognized as such under that Act and enjoying all the rights that that Act conferred upon him. Amending Act XXXIII of 1952 came into force on January 12, 1953, and by amending Section 88 it excluded from the operation of the Tenancy Act lands situated within borough municipalities, and therefore the lands within the Baroda Municipality were excluded, and admittedly the lands with which we are dealing in this revision application are situated within the Borough Municipality of Baroda. Therefore, from January 12, 1953, the Tenancy Act of 1948 did not apply to these lands. The landlord then gave a notice termi...
Sham Kekhushru Vs. N.P. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR289
Vyas J.1. This is an application made by the petitioner Sham Kekhushru under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the setting aside of the order made by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal on November 22, 1957.2. This application raises an interesting point under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The point is: Has the Mamlatdar got jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act to decide a tenant's application for the refund of the excess amount if any tendered by him to the landlord under Section 25(1) for obtaining relief against forfeiture? This point arises in the following circumstances:3. The petitioner landlord filed an application on October 11, 1954, for ejecting opponent No. 2, who was his tenant, from S. Nos. 285, 289, 290 and 297 of village Bakrol situated in the District of Baroda. The ejectment was sought by the landlord upon the ground that opponent No. 2 had committed three defaults in the payment of rent and the defaults a...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Rasikchandra Tulsidas Pate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1379
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, and the document that we have to consider is a document which purports to acknowledge a certain partition which was effected earlier. The transaction evidenced by the document is this. There was a joint family consisting of Rasikchandra Tulsidas Patel, his widow mother Narmadabai, his wife Savitaben, his minor son Chandrakant, minor unmarried daughters Indira and Anila, and two major sons Harilal and Shashikant, and from the document it appears that there was an oral partition on March 29, 1956, and the partition took this form. A sum of a lakh of rupees each was given to the two major sons Harilal and Shashikant, and the mode of transferring this sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the two major sons was that the father had an amount standing to his credit in the firm of Shah Construction Co. Ltd. and the necessary entries were made crediting the two sons with Rs. 1 lakh each. The rest of the joint family property cons...
Vishnu Kondiba Sapte Vs. Nathu Mahadev Pradhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1146
Datar, J.1. Survey Nos. 14/1 and 14/2 of Pisavare, Taluk Bhor, originally belonged to Shripati Buvaji Khopade and Sadu Shripati Khopade. Vishnu Kondiba Sapte was at the material time the protected tenant, having been upon the said lands for over 20 years. On August 16, 1949, the original owners and the landlords-Khopades, executed a sale-deed in respect of the said lands in favour of Nathu Mahadev Pradhan and others for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. After taking the aforesaid sale-deed, Nathu Mahadev Pradhan and others (who will be hereafter called purchasers) attempted to take possession of the lands from the protected tenant, Vishnu Kondiba Sapte. The protected tenant, however, resisted their attempts and filed a wahiwati suit being wahiwati suit No. 6/1949 for an injunction restraining the purchasers from causing obstruction to his enjoyment and possession. The injunction asked for by him was granted to him under the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The order of the Mamlatdar was confirmed by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »