Mumbai Court January 1963 Judgments
Eknath Dayaram Wani Vs. Kishordas Thakurdas Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR595; 1963MhLJ782
V.S. Desai, J.1. The short question involved in this second appeal is whether the time taken in prosecuting a revision application against the appellate decision in a Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief proceedings could be excluded in computing the limitation for the execution application, which the decree-holder has filed in the present case. An instalment decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder on January 18, 1941. The first Darkhast in execution of this decree was given on March 15, 1944, and it was disposed of on February 21, 1945. Subsequent thereto on July 30, 1947, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act was introduced and the decree-holder made an application to the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Court for the adjustment and recovery of his decretal debt. In these proceedings, on February 8, 1955, the judgment-debtors were held not to be debtors under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. They appealed against the said decision and the appeal was dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrao Vithalrao Vs. Vithal Sambhaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR545; 1963MhLJ834
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is prayed that the order of the Election Tribunal, respondent No. 4 to this petition, be quashed. The question that principally arises for consideration is whether in an Election Petition, filed under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, V of 1962, (hereafter referred to as the Act), it is open to a voter to challenge the election on the ground that the person declared elected was a disqualified person at the time his nomination paper was filed, and the matter arises thus:2. An election was scheduled to be held on May 27, 1962, for election of a councillor from Barahalli Electoral Division in Nanded District, for a seat in the Zilla Parishad of Nanded District. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their nomination papers for contesting the election. At the time of the scrutiny, it appears, no objection was raised to the candidature of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Kishnu Ghanshyam Vs. Maroti Mukunda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR578; 1963MhLJ520
Paranjpe, J.1. The defendants have come up in second appeal to challenge the concurrent decisions of the Courts below whereby the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of the house in suit was decreed.2. House No. 1146 situated in Circle No. 12/18 Lalganj, Nagpur, which is the subject-matter of this litigation, belonged to the joint family of the defendants-appellants and their predecessor Ghanashyam. This Ghanashyam died sometime before the document in suit was brought about on November 4, 1954, Defendant No. 1 Kishnu and defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Shioram, Anandrao and Laxman, are the sons of Ghanashyam, while defendant No. 6 is the widow of Ghanashyam. Defendant No. 2 Ramdas is the minor son of defendant No. 1 Kishnu. On January 16, 1951, Ghanashyam, acting for himself and his minor sons defendants Nos. 4 and 5, defendant No. 1 Kishnu acting for himself and his minor son Ramdas, defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 3 acting for himself, executed a document transferring t...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Bharat Oil Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom38; (1963)65BOMLR584; ILR1963Bom436; 1963MhLJ414
ORDER1. This is a defendant's application for the revision of an ex parte. decree for Rs. 1047-81 N. P. and costs.2. The plaintiff, Messsr. Bharat Oil Mills, Nagpur, had claimed Rs. 1047-81 N. P. from the defendant-firm at Calcutta on account of damages resulting from the failure of the defendant to take delivery of certain quantities of linseed oil cakes and the consequent sale thereof by the plaintiff at a lower price. The defendant had contested the suit on several grounds, which need not be stated for the purposes of this revision. The suit was fixed for final disposal on 17-10-1960, on which date the defendant's Counsel prayed for an adjournment on the ground that, the defendant could not come from Calcutta. The prayer was granted subject to the condition of paying Rs. 25/- as adjournment costs to the plaintiff. On the adjourned date, the defendant did not appear and its Counsel did not pay the adjournment costs but only applied (Page 64 of the record) with the copy of a telegram ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation Vs. Hashu P. Advani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR494; 1963MhLJ763
Patel, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Kantawala against an order under Article 226 of the Constitution and the point involved is as to the interpretation of Rule 47 made by the Municipal Corporation of Bombay for the purposes of appointment to the Standing Committee and/or the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Committee.2. A vacancy in the Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Committee occurred by the resignation of one N.M. Kamble in or about April 1961. On September 25, 1961, the Corporation passed a resolution deciding to elect on a date to be fixed by the Mayor one member in place of Mr. Kamble. October 3, 1961, was fixed by the Mayor for this purpose. The Municipal Secretary issued a notice or memorandum on September 26, 1961, to all the Councillors intimating that October 3, 1961, was fixed for the election and invited nomination papers as per Rule 47 of the Corporation Procedure Rules. The rale required that nomination papers be deposited between 10 ...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Hill Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. K.L. Gauba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom147; (1963)65BOMLR533; 1964CriLJ652
Tambe, J.1. This is an application wherein the petitioner, the Malbar Hill Co-operative Housing society, prays that action against opponent No. 1 be taken under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts AM, 1952 (Act 32 of 1952), for the alleged contempt committed by him of the third opponent a Nominee of the Registrar, appointed under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative societies Act, 1925 (Act 7 of 1925).2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are members of the petitioner Co-operative Housing society, and at the material time were residing in two flats in the Society's premises called 'Darshan Apartments' situated at Malbar Hill, Bombay, We are only concerned with the flat allotted to opponent No. 2, wife of opponent No. 1. The terms and conditions on which the, flat, namely, Flat No. B-21, was allotted to her were the initial payment of Rs. 6,001 towards the qualifying shares o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›