Mumbai Court April 1961 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.
Deo Sansthan Chinchwad and ors. Vs. Chintaman Dharnidhar Deo and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom214; (1961)63BOMLR692; ILR1962Bom101
Gokhale, J.(1) This is an appeal by the original defendants against a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents awarding Rs. 14,457, costs of the suit and interest at 3 per cent from date of suit till full satisfaction on Rs. 12, 517-8-0 or on so such out of it as may remain unrealised from time to time. The plaintiffs belong to the Dev' family. It is their case that the village of Mouje Chincholi, Taluka Haveli, was given in Inam by Shri Chhatrapati Raja Shahu to Shri Narayan Maharaj Dev, son of Chintaman Maharaj Dev, for meeting the expenses of the Deity Shri Mangalmurti at Chinchwad. Apart from the village of Chincholi, other villages like Chinchwad, Raval, Charoli were also given in Inam. It appears that the Inam was for meeting the expenses of the Deity. In 1744, there were disputes in the Dev family and that is why Peshwa Bajirao set apart half of the Inam villages and properties for religious and charitable purposes under a Tahanama, and the remaining half of the pro...
Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha Vs. State of Maharastra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom52; (1961)63BOMLR689
ORDER(1) This revisional application is against an order made by the Taxing Officer directing the petitioner to pay additional court-fee under the following circumstances:(2) Opponent No. 2 instituted Special Suit No. 5 of 1957 in the Court of the Civil Judge, S. D., at Ahmednagar, to recover a n amount lent to the petitioner. The suit was for an amount of Rs. 13,205/- which included interest upto the date of suit at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. On 18th July 1960 the claim was decreed in a suit of Rs. 13,033-8-6 with future interest from this date of suit till realization at 4 per cent per annum on a sum of Rs. 10,120/-. The appellant-petitioner appealed to this Court and valued the appeal at Rs. 13,033-8-6 and paid court-fee on that amount. The office raised a dispute and the matter was thereafter referred to the Taxing Officer. The Taxing Officer held that interest on Rs. 10,120/- at the rate of 4 per cent per annum upto the date of decree would come to Rs. 1033-40 nP. He theref...
Madhav Laxman VaikunThe Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR396
B.P. Sinha, C.J.1. The main question for decision in this appeal, on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, is whether a public servant, who has been officiating in a higher post but has been reverted to his substantive rank as a result of an adverse finding against him in a departmental enquiry for misconduct, can be said to have been reduced in rank within the meaning of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, by his judgment and decree dated October 31, 1955, held that it was so. The High Court of Bombay, on a first appeal from that decision, by its judgment and decree dated July 26, 1956, has held to the contrary.2. In so far as it is necessary for the determination of this appeal, the facts of this case may shortly be stated as follows. The appellant was holding the rank of a Mamlatdar in the First Grade and was officiating as a District Deputy Collector. In the latter capacity he was funct...
Paryanibai Vs. Bajirao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom25; (1962)64BOMLR86; ILR1961Bom963; 196164BomLR86
1. This appeal is filed by one Paryanibai widow of Raghoji whose suit for a declaration that respondent Bajirao was not a validly adopted son of her deceased son Baliram has been dismissed in the trial Court, and that dismissal has been affirmed in the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's case was that she had a son by name Baliram who died on 19th January 1950. At the time of his death Baliram left two widows. The senior widow, i.e. the one married earlier to him was Mathurabai and the other was one Dhrupatabai. It is an admitted position that Mathurabai was younger to Dhrupatabai, but the age of these two widows of Baliram is a matter of dispute between the parties. Plaintiff's case was that Baliram died issueless and that he had prohibited any adoption being made after his death-Mathurabai who is the senior widow remarried some time in 1953 and so did the other widow Dhrupatabai. There were proceedings for mutation of the field property after the death of Baliram which were cont...
The Khudabadi Bhaibund Co-operative Credit Bank Ltd. Vs. N.S. Verma an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom121; (1961)63BOMLR684; ILR1962Bom94
ORDER(1) These five revisional applications raise a common question of law and relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It will be enough to state the facts of one case for the purpose of deciding the points at issue; in the other cases, names of the parties, the amounts due from the parties and the dates of the awards differ.(2) I will take Civil Revision Application No. 1408 of 1957. The petitioner-Bank is a displaced Bank and is recognized as such under Section 43 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Since it is a Co-operative Society, it is governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were indebted to the petitioner-Bank who proceeded under the Co-operative Societies Act and obtained an award against them for was sum of Rs. 6898-14-0. As large number of people migrated from one country to the other because of the division of India, Government had to make prov...
A.V. Venkateswaran Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR386
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. [Gajendragadkar, Wanchao and Das Gupta JJ., concurring; Sarcar J., dissenting.] This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by which a writ of mandamus or certiarari granted to the respondent was confirmed on appeal preferred by the appellant now before us.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated to understand the matters in controversy and the points raised for our decision. The respondent carries on business in Bombay and he was granted on August 18, 1954, a licence under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, for the import of fountain-pens at not less than Rs. 25 C.I.F. value each from soft currency area, up to a defined amount. He placed an order for the import of Schaeffer pens from Australia and a consignment of these was received by air in Bombay in October 1954. The fountain-pens thus imported had nibs which were gold plated and also caps and clips of similar composition. The ques...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›