Mumbai Court August 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.
Shankarlal Jivanram Agrawal Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom104; (1960)62BOMLR1024; ILR1961Bom92
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner had made an application to the joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhulia, for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of the debts due to his mother of the value of Rs. 11,886/-. The certificate was issued to him on 28-10-57. The court-fee stamp payable on the certificate was calculated according to Articles 11 and 12 in the First Schedule of the Court-fees Act, 1870. On 9-10-1957 the petitioner made an application for extension of the certificate already issued to him to debts of the value of about Rs. 35,180/-. The certificate was accordingly extended on 26-11-1957. The question then arose about the payment of additional courtfees. The petitioner contended that the court-fees should be calculated without taking into consideration the debts for which the certificate had been already granted. This argument was not accepted. The learned Judge has pointed out in his judgment that a new certificate had not been issued to the petitioner, but that t...
Sunanda Vs. Gundopant Bandopant Ashtekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR125
1. This is an application for revision by a wife in a suit for divorce filed by her husband. A petition for divorce was made on 20-11-1956 by the husband on the ground of desertion by the wife and an alternative prayer for judicial separation was also made. The wife put in her appearance and filed a written statement, and the suit came up for heaving on 9-12-1957 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolhapur. On that day, the wife was absent, and the trial Judge proceeded to examine three witnesses on behalf of the husband and closed the case. On 11-12-1957, he passed a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Consequent upon this ex parte decree the wife, the present applicant, applied on 10-1-1958 for setting aside the ex parte decree. Her application (Misc. Application No. 27 of 1958) purported to be under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the wife had n...
The Bank of Poona Ltd. Vs. Narayandas Shriram Somani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom252
Patel, J. 1. (1 to 9) It is, however, contended that we must go back to the initial transactions between the parties and if the shares themselves were not validly allotted to the defendant for one reason or the other,, then the debt of Ramnath itself could not be sustained and therefore the 'havala' entry could not be effective since in that event the consideration would have failed. It is this part of the argument that we must now consider. The argument is founded on Section 91-B of the Indian Companies Act which says: '(1) No director shall, as a director, vote on any contract or arrangement in which he is either directly or indirectly concerned or interested nor shall his presence count for the purpose of forming a quorum at the time of any such vote; and if he does so vote, his vote shall not be counted'. The proviso to Sub-section (1) is not necessary for our purpose. Sub-section (2), says; 'Every director who contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be liable to a fin...
B.S. Kerkar Vs. P.N. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR992
Patwardhan, J.1. The question we are called upon to consider in these 14 civil revisional applications is, whether the learned Assistant Judge had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of civil revisional applications filed in the District Court under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter called, for brevity's sake, the Bombay Rent Act.2. The petitioner before us in these 14 civil revisional applications is a landlord. Ho owns two buildings, one of which has 10 double-room tenements and the other has 7 single-room tenements. One of these single-rooms has been given to one Bake who collects rent from other tenants. The landlord charges Rs. 30 per month for the double-room and Bs. 20 for the single-room. This is the contract rent.3. All the 16 tenants-Bake did not join them-made applications under Section 11(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent on the allegation that the rent at which the premises were let was e...
The City of Nagpur Corporation Vs. Ramchandra Shreerang Raju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR64
Tambe, J.1. The question raised in this application relates to the construction of Clause (b) of Section 119 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act. The same question also arises in Civil Revision Applications Nos. 584, 585, 586 and 587 all of 1959. I have, therefore, heard counsel in all the five cases on the question of construction of Clause (b) of Section 119. There is, however, some difference in the facts of each case. I, therefore, propose to deal with the question of construction of Clause (b) of Section 119 in this case and, then proceed to decide separately each case on its own facts.2. The facts of the case out of which Civil Revision Application No. 583 of 1959 arises are: Opponent Ramchandra Raju is the owner of a house bearing municipal No. 367 situate in ward No. 1 in Dhantoli, within the limits of the Corporation of Nagpur. The house is in the occupation of four tenants. The house is divided in four separate units and the n...
Homi J. Bhajiwala Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR1021; (1961)ILLJ170Bom
1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence under S. 52(f) read with rule 18(10) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five days by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Girgaum, Bombay. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that he along with his brother was the owner of the electroplating works in the name and style of Langlay & Co., at 357, V.P. Road, opposite Two Elephants. On 30 April, 1959, at about 11-36 a.m., inspector Patwardhan of the Shops and Establishments Department of the Bombay Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioner and found that the 'M' leave register and the 'N' leave cards of the four employees who were in the establishment, were kept blank. A complaint, therefore, was lodged against the petitioner and his brother for contravention of rule 18(10) of the rules made under the Shops and Establishments Act, which was made punishable un...
Bhagwan Sitaram Vs. Namdeo Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR289a
Kotval, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Yeotmal, dated June 26, 1958, removing the appellant Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of a public religious endowment known as Shri Dutt Deosthan, Kalamb, tahsil and district Yeotmal. The facts preceding the application dated October 19, 1957, upon which the order under appeal came to be passed are not in dispute. On June 3, 1928, one Kasabai widow of Krishnaji Gore executed a deed of trust. By that deed she dedicated a field, survey No. 39/1, area 10 acres 32 gunthas, of Kasba Kalamb, to the temple of Shri Dutt Deosthan. By the same deed she appointed five persons including the appellant Bhagwan as trustees. Of the other persons appointed as trustees, one D. B. Sarda is no longer alive. The principal trustee and the Sarpanch was the appellant Bhagwan. One of the trustees, respondent No. 2 Dattatraya, resigned on January 31, 1932.2. In 1949 this Dattatraya and one Namdeo Narayan ...
Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat Vs. ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom186; (1960)62BOMLR995
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 29th April, 1958 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff appellant in suit No. 2957 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a fisherman and at the material time was the owner of a country craft 'Pandavi'. He filed the above suit against the defendant company as owners of a cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as and by way of damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of a collision at a distance of about 10 miles from Worli Sea Shore between the defendant company's said cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' and the plaintiff's country craft 'Pandavi', alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant company, its servants and agents on the said boat resulting in the breaking in two parts and sinking of the plaintiffs country craft.3. ...
Kashibai and anr. Vs. the ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom200; (1960)62BOMLR1017
1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the widow and the heirs of one Eknath Dhondu Adurkar, who died as a result of the collision on the high seas between the defendant company's cargo boat 'Jalamanjari' and the country craft 'Pandavi'. This widow and the heirs filed suit No. 72-5 of 1955 in the Bombay City Civil Court claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, on account of the death of Eknath Dhondu Adurkar, It was contended by the defendant company that the suit fell within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court and that the. City Civil Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain it. On behalf of the plaintiffs, however, it was contended that the suit was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act and that, therefore, it did not fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Principal Judge did not agree with the contention of the plaintiffs and held that in spite of the fact that the claim in the plaint was ...
Pandurang Sakharam Jadhav Vs. Nago Hiru Gharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR988
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the two lands in dispute. On January 17, 1944, he sold these lands to one Govind Khandu Patil, who in turn sold them to Parsharam Atmaram Vichare. After Vichare purchased the lands, they were given on lease to Govind Khandu Patil, who cultivated them till 1947-48. Since 1948-49, opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, has been cultivating the lands. From the admissions made by the petitioner in his evidence, it appears that the opponent had been introduced on the lands as a tenant by Vichare in 1948-49. On June 25, 1947, the petitioner' made an application under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, in which he contended that the transaction between him and Govind Khandu Patil was a mortgage. He prayed for redemption of that mortgage. In that proceeding, it was held that the transaction was a mortgage and an order was made for possession of the lands being restored to the petitioner on his paying the amount fou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »