Mumbai Court June 1961 Judgments
Hirachand Sonu Bhavsar Vs. Mahadeo Waman Upasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR855
Gokhale, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the original defendants against whom a decree for possession was passed by the trial Court and the same has been confirmed in appeal. It is the case of the petitioners that the premises in suit were let out to the father of the petitioners some fifteen years before the suit and after the death of the father, petitioners had been paying rent to the opponent-landlord. On July 3, 1956, the landlord served petitioner No. 1 with a notice terminating the tenancy and asking for possession on the ground that the petitioners were in arrears of payment of rent from October 1, 1955, to June 30, 1956. There is no dispute that the rent of the premises is Rs. 12 per month and the notice demanded payment of Rs. 108 in respect of arrears of 9 months' rent. Immediately on receipt of this notice, on the very next day, i.e., July 4, 1956, the petitioners appear to have paid an amount of Rs. 24, and on August 1, 1956, another amount of Rs. 24 was paid....
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Shantaram Vs. Lingappa Balappa Gatade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom104; (1961)63BOMLR880; ILR1962Bom118
(1) This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, recommending that the order of conviction and sentence passed on the accused in respect of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 be set aside and the accused be set at liberty. It appears that the Food Inspector in the employment of the Poona Corporation visited the shop of the accused on 21st July 1959 at about 9-30 a. m. and purchased 12 ounces of butter (Gavathi Loni) from the accused informing him that he was a Food Inspector and he wanted to sent a sample of that butter for analysis. The butter was then divided into three equal parts and each of the parts was filled in a separate bottle duly sealed and labelled in the presence of the accused and the witnesses. One of the sealed bottles was given to the accused. Out of the remaining two bottles one was sent up to the public analyst for analysis and the butter contained in that bottles was found to be sub-stand...
Tag this Judgment!Kazi Gulam Mahamad Kazi ShahabuddIn Chilmai Vs. Keru Mahadu Shirka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR860
Gokhale, J.1. These four revision applications arise out of four suits in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Mangaon, filed by the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent for three years in respect of the suit lands from the opponent. The lands in these suits are portions of S. No. 29 and these lands are being claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff as his Khoti Khasgi lands. The defendant in each of these suits denied that these lands were Khoti Khasgi lands of the plaintiff and contended that he had become the owner of these lands under the Bombay Khoti Abolition Act, 1949 (VI of 1950), which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. It was their contention that the lands in their possession were Khoti Nisbat lands. The learned trial Judge held some of these lands to be Khoti Nisbat, while some of the lands in the possession of the tenants were held to be Khoti Khasgi. Plaintiff was accordingly given decree in respect of lands which were held to be Khoti Khasgi and his ...
Tag this Judgment!Arwindlal Bhukandas Shah Vs. Khandu Jaina Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR929
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner in these four applications had made applications to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of the lands from his tenants, who are the first opponents in applications Nos. 104, 105 and 106 and first and second opponents in application No. 107. The petitioner was a member of a joint Hindu family, which owned about 420 acres. On December 20, 1956, a partition is said to have been effected. In that partition about 12 acres and 19 gunthas of land are said to have fallen to the share of the petitioner. The lands, which fell to his share, include the lands of which the opponents are the tenants. In the applications made to the Mamlatdar, the Mamlatdar ultimately passed orders directing that possession of half of the lands should be handed over to the petitioner. These orders were confirmed by the Deputy Collector. They were set aside by the Revenue Tribunal, which has remanded the matters to the Mamlatdar for fresh inquiry. The orders of remand are being c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›