Mumbai Court March 1963 Judgments
Potu Bhawani Vs. Udhao Vithoba Khade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR610; 1963MhLJ563
Abhyankar, J.1. By this revision application, the defendant Potu challenges a finding of the trial Court in a pending suit holding that the question of the status of the defendant who claims to be a tenant on the land is not required to be referred to the Tenancy Court under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.2. Opponent Udhao has filed his suit for possession of S. No. 6, area 12.20 acres, revenue Rs. 10 situate at mauza Surdevi, in Kelapur taluq of Yeotmal district. He has also asked for determination of mesne profits and costs of the suit from the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that he was in peaceful possession of the field as tenant in his own right having obtained leasehold rights from the owner of the land one Ramji. This Ramji is not a party to this suit. The plaintiff enjoyed the crop for the, years 1958-59 and 1959-60 as tenant. He then alleges that he took the defendant as a partner for cultivating the field and the terms of partnership are given in para. 3 of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshsinha Domansingha Hajari Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR722; 1963MhLJ569
Kotval, J.1. In this petition we are concerned with a notice given to move a no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti of Nagpur, under Section 72 of the newly enacted Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (No. V of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner was elected Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Nagpur, on August 7, 1962, after the last elections to the Zilla Parishads. On October 10, 1962, four members of the Samiti who are respondents Nos. 2 to 5 gave a notice of their intention to move the no-confidence motion. That notice is at annexure B. Annexed to that notice was a copy of the resolution at annexure A. The' petitioner who received the notice in his capacity as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti ruled it out of order, and the order which he passed on the same day that he received the notice is at the foot of annexure B as follows:There is no necessity for convening the meeting to consider the motion of no conf...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Bhawanji Thakar Vs. S.P. Pande and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom170; (1963)65BOMLR674; ILR1964Bom163; 1964MhLJ157
Kotval, J.1. In this petition is challenged a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, Act XIof 1922, issued against the petitioner by the In-come-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Nag-pur. The second respondent is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, who passed an appellate order in consequence of which the impugned notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act came to be issued against the petitioner.2. The circumstances under which the noticecame to be issued against the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner's father, the late Bhawanji Naranji, was carrying on a mining business, principally at Nagpur. He passed away on 25th August 1956, and by a will bequeathed his movable and immovable properties to the petitioner. He originally hailed from Cutch but migrated to Nagpur for business and became a lessee from Government of manganese mines in and round about Nagpur district.3. For the assessment year 1947-48 he had made ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Bhawanji Thakar Vs. S.P. Pande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1963
Reported in: [1965]56ITR522(Bom)
Kotwal, J. 1. In this petition is challenged a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act (Act of XI of 1922) issued against the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Nagpur. Respondent No. 2 is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, who passed an appellate order in consequence of which the impugned notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act came to be issued against the petitioner. 2. The circumstances under which the notice came to be issued against the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner's father, the late Bhawanji Naranji, was carrying on a mining business, principally at Nagpur. He passed away on August 25, 1956, and by a will bequeathed his movable and immovable properties to the petitioner. He originally hailed from Kutch but migrated to Nagpur for business and became a lessee from Government of manganese mines in and round about Nagpur district. 3. For the assessment year 1947-48 he had made ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›