Mumbai Court February 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.
Amarnath S. Nanda Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom124; (1961)63BOMLR866
(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent the State Transport Authority, Bombay to direct the Regional Transport Authority Bombay, that it should not implement its decision dated June 24, 1959 mentioned in the petition. The relevant facts are as follows:-(2) The petitioner is a taxi-driver holding a permit No. 425 to ply 'contract carriage' i.e. public service vehicle. The petitioner is also the general secretary of the Great Bombay Taxi Drivers Association. Prior to May 1958 an application for increasing the maximum fare chargeable by taxi drivers appears to have been made and refused. A revision application from that refusal to the first respondent, the State Transport Authority, also appears to have been rejected.(3) In October, 1958 the petitioners addressed a letter in that connection to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, House Department and by a reply dated October 30, 1958 it was stated that it was op...
Abdul Latif Jusabhai Vs. D.R. Jaodekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR490
Tambe, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ or order quashing the appellate order dated June 23, 1959, made by the Deputy Collector, respondent No. 1 hereto, and prohibiting respondent No. 3 from terminating his (petitioner's) tenancy. The matter arises out of proceedings taken under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, hereinafter called the Order or the Rent Control Order.2. Respondent No. 3 claimed to be the owner of the house in question. He stated that it had fallen to his share in a partition among the members of his family. The petitioner is occupying those premises as a tenant. Respondent No. 3 applied to the Rent Controller undercl. 13(3)(vi) of the Order for permission to serve a quit notice on the petitioner on the ground that he (respondent No. 3) needed the house for the purposes of his bona fide residence. The petitioner opposed this application ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›