Mumbai Court October 1965 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Satwant Kaur Vs. Abdul Kadar Abdul Subhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom71; (1966)68BOMLR221; ILR1966Bom944
ORDER(1) The facts giving rise to this application briefly are that the petitioner-plaintiff purchased a building Jawahar Nivas in 1948. One Hafizabai was the tenet of a hair cutting saloon on the ground floor of that building. Hafizabai had sublet the premises to Abdul Subhan, father of respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and husband of respondent No. 2 His sub-tenancy in favour of Abdul Subhan had been created before the coming into force of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Abdul Subhan died on 22nd December 1950 leaving behind the respondents as his heirs. He also left another wido, who died in 1954, with whom we are no longer concerned. In 1952 the plaintiff filed a suit in ejectment against Hafizabai. On 24-6-1954 a decree in ejectment was passed against Hafizabai. When the plaintiff tried to execute the decree, respondent No. 1, original defendant No. 1 offered obstruction. He claimed to be a sub-tenant in possession ...
S.P. JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas712(Bom)
1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Companies Tribunal, New Delhi (Camp, Bombay), dismissing Application No. 37 of 1965 Union of India v. Benett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (1965) 35 Comp. Cas. 673 (C.T.) made by the appellant (original respondent No. 2 to the petition) on 20th April, 1965. In this application, the appellant had prayed that Petition No. 9 of 1964 be forthwith dismissed, or in the alternative, the said application be rejected and that all orders so far made in Petition No. 9 of 1964 be vacated. 2. Facts in brief are: By a petition under section 396 read with sections 401 and 403 of the Companies Act (1 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Union of India filed a petition before the Companies Tribunal on 30th September, 1964. The respondents to this petition were the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and nine other persons. Respondents Nos. 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10 were either directors or ex-directors of the company. Respondent No. 5 was at the material time its gener...
Madhusudan Tukaram Kulkarni Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ318
Tarkunde, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner on 25th November 1964, under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. The order was passed by the District Magistrate of Poona, who stated therein that he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, public safety and the maintenance of public order. The detention order was confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra on the recommendation of the reviewing authority.2. In Ms petition the petitioner stated that he had participated in the movement tor India's freedom, that he was sentenced for a term of two and half years for taking part in the Satyagraha movement in 1932, that he was for some days an active member of the Hindu Maha Sabha in Poona City, and that he is at present an ordinary...
Madhusudan Tukaram Kulkarni Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom65; (1966)68BOMLR246; ILR1966Bom1092
(1) This petition has been filed under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure code and Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner on 25th November 1964, under Rule 30 (1) 9b) of the Defence of India Rules. The order was passed by the District Magistrate of Poona, who stated therein that he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, public safety and the maintenance of public order. The detention order was confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra on the recommendation of the reviewing authority.(2) In his petition the petitioner stated that he had participated in the movement for India's freedom, that he was sentenced for a term of two and half years for taking part in the Satyagraha movement in 1932, that he was for some days an active member of the Hindu Maha Sabha in Poona city, and that he is at present an ordinary member...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›