Mumbai Court January 1959 Judgments
Bhikhu Sakharam Kharate Vs. B.K. Potdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR960
Patel, J.1. These three petitions arise out of elections to the Village Panchayat of Neral in Kolaba District. Nominations were invited for elections to the Panchayat and the last date for such nominations was November 13, 1957. Scrutiny was fixed for November 15, 1957, and polling was on December 26, 1957. The final results of elections Were declared on December 28, 1957. An application was made by one of the unsuccessful candidates in Ward No. IV for setting aside the election of the petitioner elected from that ward, but whose name appeared in the list of voters for a different ward. The Prant Officer, who had to deal with Election Petitions under the provisions of the Village Panchayats Act of 1933, held that the petitioner, being a voter in a different ward, could not be a candidate of the ward from which he was elected. He, therefore, declared the election of the petitioner null and void. It is from this decision that the present application has been brought to this Court under A...
Tag this Judgment!Nivruthi Laxman Kondobahiri Vs. Shivdayal Laxminarayan Sarda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR957
Chainani, C.J.(1) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether, under the provisions of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Mamlatdar can entertain and decide and decide an application filled by a landlord for a declaration that his opponent, who claims to be his tenant, is not a tenant under the said Act.(2) There is no specific provision in the Act providing for such an application being made to the Mamlatdar, Section 70, however provides:'For the purposes of this Act the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Mamlatdar - (b) to decide whether a person a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant. It is therefore, the duty and function of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant The power to decide whether a person is a tenant. necessarily includes the power to decide that the person is not a tenant. This power is, however, too be exercised by the Mamlatdar, as stated in this section, for the purposes of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Jayshree Shantaram Vankudre Vs. Rajkamal Kalamandiar Private Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1245
(1) On 31-12-1947, the petitioner and one Shantaram then being wife and husband floated the first respondent company as a private limited company. The petitioner was registered as a shareholder in respect of 251 ordinary shares of the 1st reqpondent company being the subject matter of this petition. The petitioner and the said Shantaram both continued to act as and were directors of the 1st respondent company on 1-7-1955.(2) From the deed of transfer dated 28-6-1955 a copy whereof is annexed as Ex. 2 to the affidavit in reply made on behalf of the 1st respondent compan, it appears that the petitioner had signed the deed of transfer in respect of these 251 ordinary shares of the company. In the register of shares of the 1st respondent company as 1-7-1955 these shares were transferred and registered in the name of the 2nd respondent. From the minutes of the meeting of the directors held on 1-7-1955 it appears that the petitioner and the said Shantaram were both present at the said meetin...
Tag this Judgment!Nurjehan Vs. Sultan Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1570
K.K. Desai J.1. This is an application of one Nurjehan, the mother of the minor mentioned in the petition, for delivery of the custody of the minor to her.2. It appears that prior to the petitioner Nurjehan's marriage with the respondent he was married to another lady who was at the time of Nurjehan's marriage absent from the house of the respondent. Nurjehan discovered the existence of the first marriage of the respondent subsequent to her marriage with the respondent. The parties appear to have lived together for some time and it is alleged in para. 5 of the petition that on July 31, 1957, the respondent drove the petitioner out of the house though she was pregnant at that time after snatching away the minor child from the petitioner's hands.3. The minor is 3 years old. Prima facie it must be for the welfare and in the interest of any minor that it should be with the natural mother during tender age and I have therefore requested Mr. Chitre who appears for the respondent to tell me h...
Tag this Judgment!The Western India theatres Ltd. Vs. the Cantonment Board, Poona, Canto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR950
S.R. Das, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay dated February 10, 1953, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, dated July 31, 1951, in Special Suit No. 89 of 1950 and dismissing the appellant's suit against the respondent with costs throughout. This appeal has been filed under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated. The appellant is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is a lessee of two cinema Houses known respectively as 'West End' and 'Capitol' situated within the limits of Poona cantonment area. It exhibits in the said two Houses cinematograph films, both foreign and Indian.3. On March 20, 1947, a notice was issued by the respondent whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (II of 1924), the respondent proposed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam K. Patel Vs. Bastiram Narandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom119; (1960)62BOMLR841
ORDER1. This petition is an appeal against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated 1-5-1957 refusing to accept the Petitioner's application dated 7-5-1954 for registration of trade mark. The relevant facts which arise on this appeal arc as follows:2. The opponents had been using a mark containing 'camel' imprint since about 1920 in respect of bidi manufactured and sold by them in districts of Nasik, Khandesh and other districts in the States of Bombay and Hyderabad. That mark is annexed as Ex. B to the petition before me. In 1942 the opponents' mark was registered under the Trade Marks Act. The petitioner's case is that in 1936 one Shankar Govind Patil commenced to use the trade mark which is annexed us Ex. A to the petition and containing 'camel' imprint in connection with bidi manufactured by him and sold in a small place called Sinnar situate in Nasik district. Shankar Govind Patil made a declaration in respect of that mark which is dated 17-11-1936. Shankar Govind Patil has ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnivas Hanumanbux Somani Vs. S. Venkataraman, Income-tax Officer, C- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1959
Reported in: [1959]37ITR329(Bom)
Shelat, J.1. In the year 940 Nathmal Hazarimal, Ramprasad Benilal, Rameshwar Mahadeo and the Petitioner formed a partnership and commenced carrying on business in the firm name and style of Motilal Somani & Co. In or about 1946 one of the partners, Ramprasad Benilal, died and thereupon a fresh partnership was formed in the year 1947 with the three surviving partners and a new partner by the name of Puranmal Pannalal. In 1948 this partnership was also dissolved and fresh partnership was formed with the said Puranmal Pannalal and the Petitioner only as the partners although the same business, it would seem, was continued and the same name, viz., Motilal Somani & Co., was also continued. The partnership was dissolved in 1955. Upon the said dissolution the Petitioner carried on the said business in the name of Motilal Somani & Co., as the sole proprietor thereof. It is not in dispute that in spite of the changes made in the constitution of the firm of Motilal Somani & Co. the same business...
Tag this Judgment!Amirchand Narayan Vs. Divisional Officers Bombay Division and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1145
(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to set aside the two orders copies of which have been annexed as Exs. B and C to the petition. (2) The petitioner carries on business of plying motor buses on a route known as Malad-Marve route. On the 11th of May 1955 the Regional Transport Authority granted to the petitioner a substantive permit for a period of three years to ply his buses on Malad-Marve route. The permit expired on the 11th May 1958. Prior to its expiry the petitioner applied in March 1958 for the renewal of the said permit. The application has not yet been disposed of. But the petitioner has been allowed to ply his buses on the said route under a temporary permit. (3) On the 11th of May 1955 the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking was also granted a permit to ply its buses in Greater Bombay as it then existed. By act LVIII of 1956 the limits of Greater Bombay were extended adding to its the then area 34 villages which were till then situate in t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dahyalal Dalpatram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR885; 1960CriLJ217
Shah, J. (1) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, acquitting in appeal the accused Dahyalal dalpatram who was conviced by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanpur, of an offence under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. (2) The accused Dahyalal was employed in the revenue Department of the State of Bombay as a Talati of the Piparala Seza which consists of four villages- Piparala. Raza, Madhatra and Cramdi in the Santalpur Taluka of Radhanpur Sub-Division District Banaskantha. One Vagha Ganga had unauthorisedly cultivated land near the village pond of Roza in the year 1951-52 and 1952-53. An enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar of Santalpur in that behalf and the Mamlatdar directred the accused to recover from Vagha Ganga Rs. 4/- as fine for each year for unauthorised cultivation and Rs. 1/12/- as assessment. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›