Mumbai Court January 1960 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.
Wamanrao Trimbakrao Vs. Bhaurao Mahadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR587
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner before me is admittedly the landholder of survey Nos. 34 and 36 in Khuldabad taluqa of Aurangabad district having, according to the tribunal below, a total area of 46 acres and 39 gunthas. In addition to this, the petitioner is the landholder of survey Nos. 9/1, 18/1, 16/1 and 119/1 and 32 situate in Kannad taluqa having a total area of 56 acres and 5 gunthas. The opponent is a protected tenant of survey No. 34 having an area of 22 acres 37 gunthas situate in Khuldabad taluqa. Section 38-E of the Act provides that the ownership of lands held by protected tenants on the notified date, and which they are entitled to purchase from their landholders, should stand transferred to them. It is common ground that January 26, 1956, was the date notified under this section. This section, however, provides that the provisi...
Ghanashyam Shankar Kirad Vs. the Poona Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR588
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petitioner is a lessee of a plot of land belonging to the Poona Municipal Corporation. Under a lease-deed he has taken the plot on lease for the purpose of using it for his timber business and has agreed to pay rent to the Corporation at the rate of Rs. 440 per annum. The Corporation determined the rateable value of this plot of land for the purpose of municipal taxation at Rs. 440 and has levied a tax of Rs. 51 or so thereon. The petitioner challenged his liability to pay the tax and also the amount of the tax and sought redress from the various tribunals indicated in the Act. He has, therefore, come up to this Court in revision.3. Mr. Pendse contended that since the land in question is vested in the Corporation and belongs to it, it has no liability to pay any municipal tax whatsoever because the Corporation cannot tax its own property. The ordinary conception undoubtedly is th...
Amriksingh Sahny Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR863
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a requisition order dated March 9, 1959, made in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government under Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.2. The relevant facts are as follows:-The petitioner is the owner of a building called Sahny Villa situate at 2nd Naoroji Gamadia Road, Bombay. The petitioner had let out the ground floor flat on the western side of that building and a garage to one S. Sadananda who died in 1953. The flat continued in possession of his son P. Sadananda as a tenant thereof. The petitioner's case is that in October 1955 P. Sadananda had surrendered possession of the flat and the garage to the petitioner. That fact, however, has been categorically denied in the affidavit in reply made by N. V. Kulkarni, the Accommodation Officer. By a requisition order dated February 5, 1958, the flat in question was requisitione...
Ananta Shripati Bhorade and ors. Vs. Meher (M.R.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ170Bom
S.T. Desai, J. 1. There is no substance in this petition. The petitioners 176 in number are employees of the Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited, the 5th respondents before us. Respondents 1 & 2 are members of the industrial court. The 3rd respondent is the State of Bombay and the 4th respondent is the Rashtria mill mazdoor sangh, which is a representative union registered as such under the provisions of the Bombay industrial Relations Act, 1946. The 5th respondents, to be referred to by us hereafter as the mills, put up a notice for the information of the employees stating that they had decided to discontinue the working of 1,086 ordinary looms in stages and that as a first stage in that direction, the mills had decided to stop 780 ordinary looms in the specified sections of its weaving department with effect from 3 November, 1959. About that time a large number of employees of the mills moved the labour court at Bombay on 16 October, 1959 for declaring the proposed action...
The Bombay Bullion Association Limited Vs. Jivatlal Pratapsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR380
Datar, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts and dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.] Lastly, Mr. Gokhale argued that Section 24 was not at all attracted as there was no withholding of any essential supply or service by the landlords within the meaning of that section. This point had not been taken in the Courts below. His contention is that mere omission on the part of the landlord to repair the lift which was worn-out and had fallen into disuse would not amount to withholding of any essential amenity enjoyed by the tenant. He has drawn my attention to Explanation IT to the section in support of his contention and says that it is only such omissions as are described in that Explanation that may amount to the withholding of an essential supply or service. The Explanation says:For the purposes of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›