Mumbai Court February 1964 Judgments
Haribhau and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Renenue Tribunal, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Bom271; (1964)66BOMLR599; ILR1964Bom832
Abhyankar, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting and important point under section 21 of the New Tenancy Act (Bombay Act No. 99 of 1958).(2) Petitioner No. 1 Haribhau was a landlord of survey no. 7/1, area 2 acres 10 gunthas, of village Khadatgaon in Khamgaon taluq of Buldana district. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to this petition, Sukhdeo and Waman sons of Raoji, were the tenants of this field. They executed a deed of surrender on 7th of February 1958 and delivered possession of the field to Haribhau. Thereafter Harbhau sold the field to petitioner no. 2 Rama Tukaram under a registered sale-deed dated 20th of March 1958. It is an admitted position that the surrender effected by Sukhdeo Raoji and Waman Raoji on 7-2-1958 was verified and was found to be v laid by the Tahsildar on 26-6-1958 under Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act. Petitioner No. 2 Rama Tukaram continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of this property thereafter....
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Mahadeo Ghosale and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom9; (1964)66BOMLR356; 1965CriLJ18; ILR1965Bom103
Jarkunde, J.(1) The question for the decision of which this appeal has been referred to the Division Bench is whether a prosecution launched on a Police report against some members of the police force for an offence alleged to have been committed by them by acting under colour or in excess of their authority is barred under section 161(I) of the Bombay Police Act if the prosecution were instituted more than six months after the date of the alleged offence. Sub-section (I) of section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is in the following terms :-'In any case of alleged offence by the Revenue Commissioner, the Commissioner, a Magistrate. Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Revenue Commissioner, Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or other person, by an act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein, it shall appear to the Court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Josephine Mathew Concessio Vs. Sowr Langdya Kini
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR194; 1964MhLJ328(SC)
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioners are the owners of five lands, which are held by opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, as a tenant. The petitioners made an application to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of the lands on the ground that the opponent had not paid rent for four years 1956-57 to 1959-60. The Mamlatdar appears to have found that the opponent had not paid the rent due from him. He, however, did not accept the petitioner's evidence that intimations required by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 had been given. He, therefore, held that the petitioners were not entitled to possession of the lands and accordingly dismissed their application. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Collector, but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners applied in revision to the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal took the view that under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 the intimation, must not only be in regard to the default in the payment of rent, but also...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan Karanja Vs. Bapurao Deoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR519; 1964MhLJ589
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of all these petitions which raise a common question under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, Act No. XCIX of 1958.2. The petitioner in all these cases is Shri Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan of Karanja. The Sansthan filed an application against several tenants in respect of lands held by them, before the Naib Tahsildar, Murtizapur, claiming possession of the lands under cultivation of the several tenants under Section 36(2), read with Rule 16, of the Bombay Tenancy Act of 1958 and the rules made thereunder applicable in this region. Prior to that the petitioner had issued a notice purporting to be a notice under Section 38 of the new Tenancy Act through their advocate to various tenants. One such notice is to be found at page 16 of the paper book in Special Civil Application No. 368 of 1962. The notice recites that the client on whose behalf the notice is given, is a private Sansthan and that...
Tag this Judgment!Deolal Sitaram Thakre Vs. K.M. Galat Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR595; 1964MhLJ553
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of both these petitions.2. Special Civil Application No. 375 of 1962 is filed by three persons Deolal, Pralhad and Smt. Kalindibai, in which they seek quashing of a notice issued on September 19, 1962, by the Block Development Officer and Secretary of the Barshitakli Panchayat Samiti calling a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti for co-option of certain persons under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. They also desire a writ of mandamus requiring the Collector of Akola, directing him to publish the names of the petitioners as duly co-opted members under Section 57(1)(d) and (c) of the same Act. These petitioners had asked for an ad interim writ while the petition was admitted against holding of the proposed meeting fixed for September 30, 1962. We had directed such an ad interim writ to issue in terms of the prayer Clause (c) of the petition. At that time Shri Jakatdar had...
Tag this Judgment!Awantikabai Dinkar Ujagare Vs. V.T. Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR442; 1964MhLJ536
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner was co-opted as a councillor of the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, under Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Under Clause (b) in Sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act she became a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrigonda. Opponents Nos. 4 to 7 are elected councillors of the Zilla Parishad. They are, therefore, members of the Panchayat Samiti under Clause (a) in Section 57(1). Opponents Nos. 8 to 15 have been elected as members of the Panchayat Samiti under Clause (f) in Section 57(1). Opponent No. 16 was co-opted as a member of the Samiti under Clause (e) of Section 57(1) On November 14, 1963, motions of no-confidence in the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti were passed. At the same meeting a new Chairman and a new Deputy Chairman were elected. Their elections were set aside by the Commissioner on December 19, 1963. Thereafter the Collector authoris...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sheoshankar Bachhooram Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR476; 1964MhLJ561
Paranjpe, J.1. The reference to the Division Bench has arisen under the following circumstances; Madhukar Moghe was the proprietor of a Medical Stores run under the name and style 'Anil Medical Stores', Bhandara, Sheoshankar Pande was a head constable attached to the police station at Bhandara at the relevant time. It appears that he effected search of the Stores under the Bombay Prohibition Act and the same day he approached Moghe and made enquiries about the contents of the box which he was carrying. Moghe informed the head constable that the box contained Ayurvedic medicines which he intended to take to Sakoli. The head constable searched the bos, and on search it was found that it contained a number of bottles containing Gajarasava. The head constable then seized the box, put Moghe under arrest and asked him to proceed to the police station and, when Moghe refused to do so, he was handcuffed. He paraded Moghe through the town. Moghe lodged a complaint on January 2, 1963, in the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal and Co. (Private), Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ200Bom
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, allowing the applications filed by respondent 1, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, for recovering compensation from the appellants, Amritlal & Co. (Private), Ltd. The appellant own a factory which manufactures dyes and chemicals. One Paul Danial Mascarenhas was employed in the factory as a maintenance mechanic, whose normal duty was to repair machines and electrical equipment. On 21 January, 1958, Mascarenhas tried to change the belt on a moving pulley, when the transmission machinery was admittedly in motion. He put a hook less ladder against the shafting in order to reach the pulley, which is situated at a height of about 15 feet 6 inches from the ground. While the belt was being changed, the ladder on which Mascarenhas has standing slipped, and his left arm got entangled in the moving pulley, He succeeded in extricating his arm, but in the process he slipped from the ladder and his arm ...
Tag this Judgment!S.H. Motor Transport Co. Vs. Motilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom24; (1964)66BOMLR588; ILR1964Bom822; 1965MhLJ50
Abhyankar, J.(1) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of two authorities under C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. 1947. Respondent No.1 Motilal claimed to be an employee of the petitioner-company since November 1956. The Petitioner-company was doing the business of motor transport. According to Motilal, he was employed as a Checker by the company since 15-11-1956. His services were terminated orally from 1-6-1957 without any enquiry and without any justification. Motilal claimed that he was employed on a salary of Rs. 40/- per month and he was given Rs.3/- per day as bhatta to do work as a Checker. He, therefore, filed an application on 30th of October 1957 before the Additional District Magistrate,. who was the officer then empowered to exercise the powers of an Assistant Commissioner of Labour under section 16 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. It appears, the petitioner remained absent at on...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal Pahladrai Vaid Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom1; (1964)66BOMLR353; 1965CriLJ10; ILR1964Bom679
ORDER(1) This is a revision application by the accused against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Jalgaon, which is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, rejecting their prayer for a summons for production of earlier statements of some of the prosecution witnesses.(2) The relevant facts are as follows : - Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the proprietors of 'Sohanlal Pahaladrai Solvent Extraction Plant Jalgaon' and accused No. 3 is the Manager of the said plant. On 17th March 1961, there was an explosion in the said plant and 23 employees died and eight more employees sustained injuries. The State Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire, among other things, into the cause of the said explosion. This Commission was appointed in April 1962. The Commission recorded the evidence of several persons. After the inquiry, a charge-sheet was submitted against the present accused under Sections 286, 287 and 304...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›