Mumbai Court March 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.
ismailbhai Haji Baphubhai Nadiadwala Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR543
Patel, J.1. This Revisional Application and the others raise a question of construction of Section 394(1)(c)(iv) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The petitioners are owners of stables in Malad. This area was outside the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and since their construction the stables are used as stables for milch cattle. After the area was brought within the limits of the Greater Bombay, the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act became applicable. It appears the area was brought under the administration of the Municipal Corporation on February 1, 1957. Notices were served on the petitioners between July 2, 1958, to July 17, 1958, to carry out certain requirements, about 16 in number. It was said thatIn view of the fact that you are carrying on the trade at the place prior to the merger of the Malad District Municipality a licence up to March 31, 1958 will be granted to you on your paying the scheduled fees to the Assistant Superintendent of Licences (Suburbs...
Pearl and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1960
Reported in: 196011STC48Tribunal
1. This application is preferred against an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision) II, Bombay, on the 27th April, 1959. The facts of the case are these: The applicants are Messrs Pearl & Co., which are a partnership firm. The firm, it is said, is composed of two partners, one of whom is one Dr.L.S. Desai. The firm has business premises which are used also by Dr.Desai as a medical practitioner. The way in which the business is conducted seems to be that Dr. Desai examines patients to whom he gives prescriptions and those prescriptions are presented to the Pearl & Co., which sells the medicines.2. For the period from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer, while assessing the firm, included in the. turnover of the firm the receipts from the prescriptions and the question which Mr.Mehta for the applicants has raised is whether the receipt of Rs. 6,998-8-0 are taxable in the hands of the applicants 3. Now, as regar...
Jankibai Tukaram Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR629
ORDER(1) In this Civil Revision Application by one Jankibai the order passed by the lande Acquisition Officer, Nagpur, rejecting her application to make a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which ill hereinafter be referred to as the Act on the ground that it was time-barred is being challenged. The award was passed on 25-6-1958 and the application under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector prarying that the matter be referred under that section for the determination of the Court was on 19-8-1958. The application as rejected on the ground that the notice required by sub-secton (2) of Section 12 of the Act was served on 3-7-1958 by affixture on the house of Jankibai, and that therefoe under the proviso to Section 18 the application which was made on 19-8-58 was made more than six weeks from the date of service of notice, namely, 3-7-1958, and that the application could not therefore be entertained.(2) A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the...
Jashwantlal Bapalal Vs. Navinchandra Chandulal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR527
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The question referred to the full bench relates to the interpretation of Section 195(1)(c), Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 195 runs as follows;(1) No Court shall take cognizance-(a) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, Sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or(c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a part...
Navnitlal Ranchhodlal Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom89; (1960)62BOMLR622; ILR1960Bom651
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a Special Civil Application challenging a notification issued by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Division; under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying for acquisition final Plots 160 and 163 of the Town Planning Scheme Ahmedabad No. 3 (Ellis Bridge) from the area of the village Shekhpur-Kanpur comprised in the Ahmedabad City. The petitioner owned both these final plots, but he disposes of final plot No. 160 by donating it to a Public Trust on the 5th May 1959. Both these final plots of land, according to the petitioner, are situate within the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and are valuable pieces of land in the Town Planning Scheme. They have an excellent situation commanding the meeting of four different roads and are on the bank of river Sabarrnati. The public purpose for which they have been notified tor acquisition is the construction of the office building of the Executive Engineer of the Ahmedabad Irrigation Division. 2. By cla...
Dr. Vinayak Trimbak Wale Vs. Tarachand Hiralal Shet Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR785
Gokhale, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the tenant against a decree passed by the Court of the Assistant Judge of East Khandesh at Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 395 of 1956 directing him to vacate the suit premises, of which he is a monthly tenant. The petitioner is a dentist and he has been in possession of the southern portion of the ground floor of Municipal House No. 299 in Baliram Peth, Jalgaon, in C. S. No. 2184/8, since 1939. The promises are being occupied by him partly for his residence and partly for his dispensary and the rent payable for the block is Rs. 27 per month plus permitted increases. The opponent, who is a resident of the village of Zurkheda in Taluka Erandol, purchased this house on. August 30, 1949. On July 2, 1955, the opponent gave a notice to the petitioner terminating the petitioner's lease by the end of July 1955 on the ground that he required the promises in the occupation of the petitioner bona fide for his own occupation because he wanted to s...
Ramchandra Annasaheb Shinde Vs. Dagadu Shankar Shevate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom71; (1960)62BOMLR778; ILR1961Bom14
Chainani, C.J.(1) The question which has been referred to the Full Bench, is as follows:'Where there is a contractual tenancy for a fixed number of years expiring on particular date and the landlord has given notice of one year under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, whether the period of such notice should expire on the date when the contractual lease terminates by efflux of time or whether the same should expire at the end of the year as defined under sub-section (20) of Section 2 next following the date on which the contractual lease expires by efflux of time?'This question arises in the above four special civil applications, which have been placed before us. In Special Civil Appln. No. 2486 of 1958 and No. 2587 of 1958, the landlords had on 9-9-1939 granted leases of their lands for a period of 15 years. On 23-3-1954, the landlords gave notices under section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Ac...
Ganpati Appa Kasar Vs. Maruti Bala Nagave and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom75; (1960)62BOMLR802; ILR1961Bom28
Chainani, C.J.(1) The question referred to the Full Bench relates to the interpretation of Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In order to decide this question, it is necessary to refer to two other Sections of the Act as they stood before the Act was amended in 1956. Section 14(1) provided that notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a Court of law, the tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated except on the grounds specified in this sub-section. One of the grounds specified in this sub-section was that the tenant had failed to pay in any year the rent of the land for that year, within the period prescribed in the section. The proviso to sub-section (1) stated:'No tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in this sub-section, unless the landlord gives three months' notice in writing intimating the tenant his decision to terminate th...
Hasan Nurani Malak Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR617
Tambe, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the four petitioners, who claim to be the legal representatives of late Khan Bahadur M. E. R. Malak, pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated July 18, 1959, made by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, respondent No. 2 hereto, and the order dated August 24, 1955, made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Nistar Officer, Umrer, respondent No. 3 hereto. They further pray that the original order made by the Compensation Officer on October 5, 1951, be maintained. Late K. B. M. E. R. Malak was the recorded proprietor of mouza Umrer in Umrer tahsil of Nagpur district. It is well-known that proprietary rights of the proprietors in the malguzari villages were abolished and those became vested in the State Government by virtue of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, Act 1 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›