Mumbai Court February 1963 Judgments
Ranjit Patiraj Chanbe Vs. Behram Sheriar Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR464
Patel, J.1. This is an appeal from an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The facts are as follows: The respondents-defendants are the owners of the suit property. They filed a suit against the appellant-plaintiff in the Court of Small Causes under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for eviction on the ground that ho was their tenant and that rent was in arrears for more than six months. The plaintiff contested the suit contending that he was not a tenant of the defendants but was the tenant of one Atmaram Sadashiv, who himself was a tenant of the defendants, The Court tried the issues which arose on these conflicting claims and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants and as he was found to be in arrears of rent for more than six months, the Court made a decree. The plaintiff carried the usual appeals available to him tinder the provisions of the Rent Act but failed. He then ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Shrivallabh Vs. Bhagwantrao Marotirao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom58; (1963)65BOMLR256
Chainani, C.J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that the petitioner and opponent No.1 were candidates at the election held in Walgaon electoral division for electing councillors of the Zilla Parishad for the Amravati District. The election was held on 27th May 1962. The result of the election was declared on 1st June 1962 and the petitioner was declared to be elected. On 15-6-1962 opponent No.1 filled an election petition in which he challenged the election of the petitioner. Opponent No.1 also joined in his election petition opponents 2 to 10, who had originally stood as candidates, but who had withdrawn from the election before the date appointed in this behalf, i.e., 12-5-62. On 24-7-1962 the petitioner filed his written statement in reply to the election petition. In his statement he contended that opponent No.1 was not competent to file the election petition as he was not a voter in Walgaon constituency. On the same day he made an application that a preliminar...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrabhan Nagoji Jichkar Vs. Amritrao Harbaji Kotamkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom34
Chainani, C.J. (1) The petitioner was the Mukadam Patel of villages of Virali and Barwha. He stood as a candidate for election the Zilla Parishad. An objection was raised to his nomination but it was rejected. An appeal against that order was made to the District Judge. He allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Returning Officer accepting the petitioner's nomination.(2) Mr. Manohar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that if S.16(1) (h) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, is held to be applicable in this case, then the order made by the District Judge would be correct. He has, however, contended that in view of the provisions of Sections 288 and 290 of the Act read with sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) in paragraph 2 in the Eleventh Schedule to the Act, the question whether the petitioner was qualified to stand a s a candidate will have to be decided by reference to the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Dagadu Narayan Kale Vs. Uttamchand Panalal Dudhedia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR551; 1963MhLJ776
Tambe, J.1. These two allied matters can be disposed of by this common judgment. The facts giving rise to these petitions in brief are: S. No. 90, admeasuring 22 acres 27 gunthas, situate at village Undirgaon belonged to the joint family consisting of Sawalaram, the grand-father, his son Narayan, and Narayan's son Dagadu. At the material time, respondent No. 1, Uttamchand, was admittedly in possession of the suit field. Civil Suit No. 15 of 1957 was instituted by Dagadu in the year 1957 for partition of the joint family properties, and to this suit, Sawalaram and Narayan were joined as parties. By consent of the parties, a decree was made in the said partition suit, and the suit S. No. 90 fell to the share of Dagadu. Uttamchand, thereafter, filed a civil suit No. 101 of 1958, for a declaration that the decree made in the partition suit was not binding upon him, and prayed that an injunction be issued against Dagadu that he should not interfere with his possession. According to Uttamcha...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sadawrat Sansthan Vs. Deorao Zinguji Khandke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR656
Paranjpe, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' application for the revision of a small causes decree which was passed for Rs. 45.39 nps in place of the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 452.22 nps.2. The plaintiff-trust owns two fields Nos. 94/4 assessment Rs. 13-10-9 and 15/2 assessment Rs. 5-12-0. These two fields were leased out by the plaintiff-trust to the defendant's father for the year 1957-58 for a lease-money of Rs. 400. The fields were again let out to the defendant himself for the year 1958-59 for a lease-money of Rs. 400. The agreement in both these lease-deeds was that the lease-money was to be paid on December 1, 1957 and 1958, respectively. On November 29, 1957, the defendant paid Rs. 200 towards the lease' money of the year 1957-58. On February 16, 1959, he paid a further sum of Rs. 225 to the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff-trust has based its suit on the following allegations: After the payment of Rs. 200 on November 29, 1957, the defendant's father was liable for payment of the balance Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrishna Nimaji and ors. Vs. Namdeo Bapuji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Bom163; (1963)65BOMLR251; 1963MhLJ289
Chainani, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is: Whether Manabai v. Ramchandra, 1958 NLJ 453 was correctly decided? In that case, it was held that the word 'transfer' as used in Subsection (9) of Section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (No. XXIV of 1951) does not include partition. The case, in which this reference has been made, has, however, to be decided by reference to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (No. XCIX of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. With the consent of the advocates for the parties, we have, therefore, decided to alter the question, which is to be considered by us, as follows:'Whether partition is a transfer within the meaning of Sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958?'2. The word 'transfer' is not defined in the Tenancy Act. Clause (34) of Section 2 of the Tenancy ...
Tag this Judgment!icchalal Sukhadeo Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom103; (1963)65BOMLR468; 1964CriLJ396; ILR1963Bom297
Tarkunde, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against an order of the Presidency Magistrate, Special Court No. 2, Esplanade, Bombay, convicting the appellant under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months. At the relevant time the appellant was an employee in a firm of bullion merchants carrying on business under the name 'Messrs. Ambalal Amichand and Co.' One Ambalal Amichand was a partner of the firm. On the morning of 14th December 1960, the appellant went to the residence of Ambalal Amichand and came out after about 10 minutes. On account of some information which had been received, a Preventive Officer had kept a watch on the residence, and some time after the appellant came out of the residence, he was accosted by the Preventive Officer. It Was found that the appellant had a jacket under his single, and in that jacket he was carrying four packages of 25 bars of gold each, each bar weighing 10 tolas. When questioned about...
Tag this Judgment!Chenaji Kaliaji Vs. Municipal Borough Dhulia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR521; 1963MhLJ704
Patel, J.1. This is a reference by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhulia, in a suit raised by the present plaintiffs against the Municipal Borough, Dhulia. The plaintiffs filed the suit for an injunction restraining the Municipal Borough from proceeding under the provisions of Section 104 and onwards of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 104(4)(c) of the Act. It seems that plaintiff is a purchaser in an execution proceeding of properties in respect of which the Municipal Borough sought to recover the taxes due. According to him, he got possession on November 10, 1961. It is not necessary to refer to the several contentions raised by the plaintiff, except one contention in the plaint by which he contended that the provisions of Sections 104, 105, 112, 113 and 113A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, were ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. As this ground was a challenge to the Act itself under the Constitutio...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mohanlal Devichand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom67; (1963)65BOMLR245; 1964CriLJ330; [1963(6)FLR407]; ILR1963Bom631; (1963)IILLJ241Bom
1. These two appeals preferred by the State Government from the orders of acquittal raise common questions of law and fact and can, therefore, be disposed of by the same judgment. The accused was working a stone quarry at Lonavala. For carrying on that work, he had employed a few workers. On 21 April, 1961, the inspector appointed by the Central Government inspected the quarry and found the following failures : (1) Notices required by rule 22 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, were not displayed. (2) A register of wages as required by rule 26(1) of the said rules was not maintained at the workspot. (3) A register of overtime as required by rule 25(2) of the said rules was not maintained. (4) A register of fine or deduction for damage was not maintained at the work spot as required by rule 21(4) of the said rules. (5) Wages slips to the workers were not issued as required by rule 26(2) of the said rules. (6) A muster roll was not maintained at the work spot as required by rule ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›