Mumbai Court March 1961 Judgments
Jainabai Haji Ramjan Shaikh Vs. Bakaji Bhau Mandalik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR657
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner's husband Haji Bamzau Shaikh was the owner of survey No. 785. Opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, is the tenant of this land. The petitioner's husband died about seven years ago, leaving behind the petitioner, two sons and one daughter. Thereafter the names of all the heirs were entered in the record of rights. Subsequently the petitioner's name alone was shown as the Kabjedar, but as manager of the joint family. In 1958 the petitioner made an application to the Mamlatdar for obtaining a certificate under Section 880 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lauds Act, 1948, The Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner was less than Rs. 1,500. He, therefore, directed the issue of a certificate to her. The opponent appealed to the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector took the view that the petitioner and her two sons were members of a joint family a...
Tag this Judgment!Haribax Chotalal Vs. Punaji Januji Thombe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR922
Abhyankar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff Haribax whose suit for possession of field survey No. 13/2, area 3 acres 30 gunthas, revenue Rs. 16-2-0, situate at mouza Songir, in Belapur taluq of Akola district, was dismissed by the First Additional Judge to First Civil Judge, Class It, Akola, in Civil Suit No. 428-A of 1951 on July 25, 1952. His appeal in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Akola, which was Civil Appeal No. 40-A of 1958, was also dismissed on January 31, 1959.2. The plaintiff claims possession on the ground that this field was put to sale by a revenue Court on October 18, 1948, in Revenue Case No. 7 XXXI 1946-47 and that he was declared the highest purchaser for Rs. 150. The sale was confirmed on November 25, 1948, and he has been given a sale certificate under Section 16.1. of the Berar Land Revenue Code declaring him to be the purchaser of this property. The sale-certificate is dated February 18, 1949, and is filed as exh. P-1 in t...
Tag this Judgment!Nyalchand Gulabchand Weaving Factory Vs. Himatlal Rameshchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom40; (1961)63BOMLR655; ILR1962Bom70
ORDER(1) This is an application in revision against an order in an arbitration proceeding before the City Civil Court after the filing of the award.(2) It appears that there were business dealings between the petitioner and the opponent and the disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration of two arbitrators. The arbitrators made an award directing that the petitioner should pay an amount of Rs. 24,150/- in cash by 31st May 1960 in one or two instalments. At the time when the notice of motion was taken out for making a decree in terms of the award, the petitioner made an application that the amount decreed by the award should be made payable by instalments of Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Judge dismissed the notice saying that he had no jurisdiction to grant instalments by interfering with the award made by the arbitrators.(3) Mr. Kapadia on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Court has power under O. 20, R. 11 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to grant in...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniwas Hanumanbux Somani Vs. S. Venkataraman, Income-tax Officer, C- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR152(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellant under article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the original side of this court, wherein he had prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction, calling for the records of the case and, after going into the question of the legality thereof, quash and set aside the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, C. III Ward, Bombay, under section 34(1) and section 22(4) of the Act. The appellant further prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition and/or mandamus or other appropriate writ under article 226 of the Constitution, restraining and prohibiting the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from taking any steps or proceedings in enforcement, furtherance, pursuance or implementation of the aforesaid notices. 2. The material facts averred by the appellant in his petition were that in 1940, a firm called Motilal Somani & Co., was starte...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Gopalshet Narkar Vs. Hirabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom27; (1961)63BOMLR676; ILR1962Bom195
(1) The appellant before me, in this appeal from order, is the husband. He had made an application in the City Civil Court of Bombay under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act asking for judicial separation from his wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The notice of the application was served on the wife and she appeared through counsel, but before the husband led evidence in support of his petition for judicial separation, the husband applied to the learned trial Judge for permission to withdraw his petition which he had filed under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned trial Judge heard the wife to show cause why permission to withdraw may not be granted. On hearing the parties the learned trial Judge allowed the husband to withdraw the petition which he had made for judicial separation. This order was made on the 10th of August, 1959. Thereafter the wife made an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act asking for a provision for her main...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Baldev Pathak Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom290; (1961)63BOMLR873
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Act 226 of the Constitution challenging the act of the 2nd Respondent, being Rummaging Inspector of Customs, of seizure of a Buick motor car of the ownership of the petitioner. Incidentally, certain orders passed by the Additional Collector of Custom and Assistant Collector of Customs have been argued to be invalid on behalf of the petitioner as also the respondents.(2) The relevant facts are as follows:A Buick (Sedan) 1959 Model two-door convertible car landed at the Port of Bombay on 22nd September 1959 by S.S. 'Exchequer'. It was sought to be cleared without payment of duty and without an I.T.C. licence under cover of Carnet De passages En Dluance No. 593820 by one V.V. Purie and one Mauji as agents of one Mons, Andra bensimon. The clearance was not allowed to be permitted. Bensimon arrived in India on October 8, 1959. Purie, Mauji and Bensimon wee called upon to show cause why the Buick car should not be confiscated under S 167(8) of the Sea Custom...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR502(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act - hereinafter referred to as the Act. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1957-58. The facts giving rise to this reference, as stated in the agreed statement of case, are that one Balaji Laxman and Vishweshwar Rao Dharmarao entered into a partnership some time in August, 1952, to exploit tendu leaves forest in Ahiri and Repanpalli ranges. In the said firm Balaji Laxman had 3/4th share and Vishweshwar Rao 1/4th share. The said partnership of the two carried on business during the years 1953, 1954 and 1955 tendu leaves season (the season usually beings in April and ends with June each year). In open auction, certain forests were taken up by this firm for exploitation during the year 1956 season. Before time came to exploit them, differences arose between the two. Hence the two, that is, Balaji Laxman and Vishweshwar Rao, agreed to separate and dissolve the firm and accordingly an agreement to dissolve th...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Vishnu Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR615
Naik, J.1. This revisional application No. 1393 of 1958 has a chequered career. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner, who would hereinafter be referred as the 'accused', was served with an order of externment under Section 57(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, on October 15, 1957. The order was to the effect that the accused was convicted under Section 380 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on November 16, 1949, and that he was likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to the above offence, and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Police called upon the accused to remove himself out of the limits of Greater Bombay and Thana District within two days from the date of the final order in the case, viz. the Yellow gate Police Station L.A. No. 11682 of 1957 pending against him and in case he is convicted in the said case and is sent to the jail for undergoing any impriso...
Tag this Judgment!Wassiamull Assomull and Co. Vs. Goodluck Pictures
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR549a
K.K. Desai, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.] As regards the. contention, that the plaintiffs are moneylenders and are not entitled to maintain this suit except under a licence obtained under the Bombay Money-lenders Act, it is relevant to notice certain provisions of the Act. The contention is based on Section 10, the relevant part whereof runs as follows:-10. (1)..., no Court shall pass a decree in favour of a money-lender in any suit... to which this Act applies unless the Court is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advanced, the money-lender held a valid licence.The several sub-sections following Sub-section (1) deal with the situations that may arise in a suit filed by a money-lender without a licence. In certain conditions ,'such suit is liable to be dismissed. The substance of the defendants' contention is that 'the plaintiffs are money-lenders'' within the meaning of the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Patil Vs. D.R. Khanna and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1965Bom267; (1964)66BOMLR773; 1965MhLJ44
ORDER(1) By this petition the petitioner prays for a writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the respondents to post the petitioner in the Compilation Branch of the Central Railway at Bombay as a Senior clerk in the grade of Rs. 80-220 on a pay of Rs.192/- per month or some other suitable post in the said Branch and also to direct them to fix his seniority in the Complication Branch in accordance with the terms of the option exercised by the petitioner in or about July 1953. The 1st respondent is the present General Manager of the Central Railway. Originally, the 1st respondent was R. B. Lal who was the General Manager of the Central Railways when the petition was field but in view of the occupant of that post having changed D.R.Khanna has since been substituted in his place as the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the Union of India.(2) The petitioner joined the service of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »