Mumbai Court February 1962 Judgments
Shri Usaf Usman Mujawar Vs. Shrimant Yeshwantrao Appasaheb Ghatage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR831
Tambe, J.1. It would he convenient to dispose of all the three applications by one judgment as the major contentions raised in these three applications are common. All the three applications arise out of the applications made by the respective landlords against their respective tenants for fixation of reasonable rent under Section 43B of the Tenancy Act, and the contentions raised on behalf of the tenants before us relate to the applicability of Sections 43A and 43B of the Act to the facts of this case. It is not necessary to state the facts in each and every case. But to appreciate the contentions, it is sufficient to refer to the facts in one case, and we would state facts in Spl. C. A. No. 715 of 1961. Respondent No. 1 Sri Ghatage at the material time was the landlord of Section No. 93/1 admeasuring 7 acres and 14 gunthas, situate within the limits of Kagal, district Kolhapur. The yearly assessment on the land is Rs. 41-1-0. Respondent No. 1 leased this field to the petitioner befor...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Maqsood Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom110; (1962)64BOMLR683; ILR1963Bom158; 1963MhLJ60
1. This appeal raises questions under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The short facts necessary to appreciate the questions in issue are as follows;2. After the partition of the country, various States had enacted laws for the custody and the administration of evacuee property. Under the Bombay Act the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property declared Abdul Rashid Khan and S. A. Quraishi evacuees and on 10th January 1950, took charge of the business, the tenancy rights and stock-in-trade of 'Marina Hotel' belonging to them. It seems that at the relevant time in the suit premises the evacuees had about five lodgers, from these lodgers the evacuees were recovering a sum of Rs. 905 though they were paying actual rent of Rs. 555-12-0 per month, On 17th January 1950 the Deputy. Custodian of Evacuee Property entered into an arrangement with the lodgers to the detect that they should together pay him consolidated rent of Rs. 555-12-0 and an additional amount of 20 per cent, over...
Tag this Judgment!Kesheorao Shrawanji Datir Vs. Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR599
Kotval, J.1. In this Special Civil Application, we are concerned with the election of the President of the Municipal Committee, Badnera. He was declared to have been elected on November 24,-1961, in circumstances which, briefly stated, are as follows: The general election for the purpose of constituting the Municipal Committee was held on October 21, 1961, and the names of the elected members of the Municipality were notified in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on November 2, 1961. A meeting of the members of the Committee was convened for the election of the President as provided by Section 18 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, for November 24, 1961. What happened at that meeting has given rise to the present petition.2. It appears that respondent No. 5 Pundalik Sadhu Bansod wanted to stand as a candidate for the presidentship and, therefore, two of his supporters and he went to the municipal office and handed over his nomination paper to respondent No. 2 who was appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Panchfulabai Bapubao Deshmukh Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR717
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of Special Civil Applications Nos. 209 and 210 of 1961.2. The petitioner Panchfulabai claims to be a protected lessee of field S.No. 30, area 28 acres 20 gunthas, revenue Rs. 12, situate at mauza Sakhra Khurd, in Kelapur taluq of Yeotraal district. Respondent No. 2 Shankarrao Mankar was the landholder of this field. This field was in cultivating possession of one Kesheo who was a minor son of the petitioner. Kesheo was in possession of the land as a protected lessee on January 1, 1953. It appears that Shankarrao had leased out another field S. No. 33 to Bapurao, father of Kesheo. Shankarrao filed a suit for arrears of lease money in the civil Court against Bapurao. It is riot clear from the record whether the protected lessee Kesheo was impleaded in that suit. During the pendency of the suit on May 3, 1956, a compromise was arrived at between the landholder Shankarrao and Bapurao, the tenant. It is alleged that as a result of ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon and anr. Vs. Hirabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom225; (1962)64BOMLR602; ILR1963Bom612
Palekar, J. 1. These four appeals arise out of four suits filed for the recovery of certain amounts by way of refund of tax alleged to have been illegally recovered by the Municipal Committee, Dhaman-gaon. The two First Appeals are from decrees passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Amravati in Civil Suits Nos. 17-A of 1952 and 18-A of 1952 respectively. The other two Second Appeals arise out of two suits filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandur, being suits Nos. 100-B of 1956 and 70-B of 1957 respectively. All the suits were substantially decreed by the trial Courts. From the suits decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandur, appeals were filed to the District Court, the appeals being Nos. 44-B and 45-B of 1959. The learned District Judge reversed the two decrees passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suits. From that order the two Second Appeals have been filed in this Court.2. All these appeals were heard together as the mor...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. the Trustees of the Port of B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR579
Mody, J.1. At this stage the Advocate General states that he wants to cross-examine the witness Krislmaram Tuljaram Divecha on the basis of the facts of certain instances of lettings about which' he will hereafter lead evidence and which he hopes to establish.2. In this connection, 1 may record that before he concluded the examination-in-chief of this witness, Mr. Gandhi himself had stated that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had given notice to his client, claimant No. 3, that at the hearing of this reference the Special Land Acquisition Officer will rely upon certain instances, that certain particulars of such instances were mentioned in the notice and that he wanted to put questions to the witness on the basis of such instances, including his opinion on that basis. At that stage I prevented Mr. Gandhi from asking this witness questions on such a basis, as it would be a mere hypothetical basis, because at that stage no evidence at all had been led as to the instances proposed to...
Tag this Judgment!The National Union of Commercial Employees Vs. M.R. Meher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR693
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a dispute between the appellants, the National Union of Commercial Employees & Another, and the respondents Pereira, Fazalbhoy and Desai who constitute an Attorneys' firm by name M/s. Pereira Fazalbhoy & Co. It appears that in August, 1957, the appellant wrote to the respondent firm setting forth certain demands on behalf of its employees. These demands related to bonus for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 and to certain other matters. As the parties could not agree, the dispute was taken before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer also failed to bring about a settlement and so he submitted his failure report to the Government of Bombay. Thereafter, the State Government referred the dispute in regard to the bonus for the two years 1956 and 1957 for adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). Before the Tribunal, the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Saheb Manilal Gangaram Sindore and anr. Vs. Western India theatres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom40; (1962)64BOMLR532
1. I am afraid this suit will have to be dismissed on the preliminary issue that is raised on behalf of the 1st defendant company in consequence of a notice given by it to the plaintiffs and the issue is as to whether this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain this suit, The reason why this is raised is that the subject-matter of the suit has been valued by the plaintiffs at R.s. 1,300/- and obviously, therefore, this Court will have no. jurisdiction to entertain this suit.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for rectification of the register of members maintained by the 1st defendant company, alleging that the latter had wrongfully refused to register in their names certain shares in respect of which they had submitted to the company a duly completed transfer form. It is not necessary for me to set out the various allegations that have been made by the plaintiffs in the plaint in support of their contention that they are entitled to call upon the 1st defendant company to rectify the r...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit D. Udeshi and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Bom268; (1962)64BOMLR356; ILR1962Bom538
Patel, J.(1) The petitioner and three others, who are partners of a bookstall known as the 'Happy Book Stall' situated at Colaba Causeway, Bombay, have been convicted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, in that they sold and were found in possession, for the purpose of sale, of copies of a highly controversial novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' by D. H. Lawrence which was alleged to be obscene. They were charged under this section in respect of several passages occurring in that book marked 'Exhibits A-1 to A-22' in the original. The learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate found them guilty of the offence charged against them and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 20 and in default to suffer one week's simple imprisonment. The petitioner has filed this revision application challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate.(2) It is contended for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›