Mumbai Court September 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.
Savlaram Kacharoo Mhatre Vs. Yeshodabai Savlaram Mhatre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom190; (1962)64BOMLR27; ILR1962Bom326
(1) The appellant filed a petition for annulment of marriage asking for a decree of nullity in the court of the Civil Judge, S. D., at Thana on the ground that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by some person other than the petitioner-appellant and that he was ignorant of the pregnancy at the time of marriage. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 8th February 1955. The appellant alleged that she delivered a full-time male child on the 6th of August 1955 about 180 days after the marriage was solemnized.(2) The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force on 18th May, 1955. The Court was closed for Summer Vacation on 17th May and reopened on 11th June and the appellant filed the petition under section 12(1)(d) of the Act on 11th June 1956. The trial Court dismissed it on the ground that it was not filed within one year of the commencement of the Act as required by section 12(2)(b) (ii) and the decision of the trial Court is confirmed in appea...
Zakeria Suleman Vs. the Collector, Yeotmal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom233; (1962)64BOMLR483; ILR1962Bom441
Kotval, J.1. These applications give rise to a common Question whether the Rent Controller under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, has the power under Clause 13 to dismiss for default an application of landlord for obtaining permission to eject a tenant and whether he has the power to restore that application to file.2. The landlord in both these applications is the petitioner Haji Zakeria Suleman of Yeotmal. The tenant in S. C. A. 383 of 1960 is Fatmabi wife of Hasan Ali and in S. C. A. 384 of 1960 Abdul Hussain son of Haji Abdul Ali. The litigation between the parties has been going on since 11-10-1956 when the landlord originally presented his applications for permission to eject the tenant in both the cases. With the chequered history of this litigation we are not concerned. The matter had previously come before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 127 of 1959. The Landlord's applications had been dismissed without consideration ...
Balubhai Gulabdas Navlakhi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR492(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question which has been raised in this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessees, is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Act. The assessees are Balubhai Gulabdas Navlakhi, whose father, Gulabdas Dharamdas Navlakhi, had started business in partnership in the firm name of J. V. Navlakhi & Co. since 1920 and the firm of Messrs. J. V. Navlakhi & Co. The first deed of partnership was on 7th January, 1920, and embodied a partnership amongst five partners, including Gulabdas Dharamdas Navlakhi. In 1922, one of the original partners retired and another person was taken up as a temporary partner and the partnership continued till the end of the year 1922. From 1st January, 1923, the assessee, Balubhai Gulabdas Navlakhi, became a partner in the firm, and the partnership deed, which was drawn up on the 22nd January, 1923, showed six persons as p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›