Mumbai Court June 1965 Judgments
S.W.V. Fredricks Vs. Krishna Sopanrao Kamble and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom324; (1965)67BOMLR928; ILR1966Bom456
Patel, J.1. These two petitions arise out of elections to the Cantonment Board, Kirkee, held on 9th February 1964. Results of the elections were declared on 10th February 1964 at which the petitioners in both the cases were declared elected in respect of their respective Wards. The opponent in each case, who was a candidate in his respective Ward, filed on 17th February 1964 an election petition challenging the election of the respective petitioner. At the time of presenting the election petition, the deposit which is required to be made under R. 44 of the Election Rules framed under the Act, was not made. Ultimately, on the 4th September 1964, the learned Judge framed the issues in the presence of both the sides and at that time it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge by the respective petitioners that deposits as required by R. 44 were not made. The respective Advocates of Opponent No. 1 in each case then made an application that they should be allowed to make the deposit, ...
Tag this Judgment!Raje Vyankatrao Jagjiwanrao Deshmukh Vs. Sitalprasad Sivnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR868; 1965MhLJ913
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench as slightly reformulated by us is as under:Whether in view of the fact that no notification under Section 2(j) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (No. XXIV of 1951) appointing any Revenue Officer to discharge the functions of a Revenue Officer under Section 16 of that Act has been issued, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide the question referred to in Sub-section (1) of this section is ousted ?2. The facts of the two suits, which have given rise to this reference, are briefly these: The plaintiff had filed the two suits for obtaining possession of the lands from the defendants and for eviction of the defendants. In each suit, he alleged that the defendant was a trespasser and that he had forcibly taken possession of the land. The defence was that the plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with each defendant, by which the land had been leased to the defendant, that the defendants had acquired...
Tag this Judgment!Pearly Andrew Franz Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: [1965(11)FLR365]; (1965)IILLJ478Bom; 1965MhLJ807
ORDERK.K. Desai, J.1. As regards the second relief, the debtor's contention is that a sum of Rs. 7,062.75 stands to his credit with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Bombay. Admittedly, to this fund, the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1652, and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme enacted under that Act are applicable. The contention is that, having regard to the provisions in the Act and the scheme, the Official Assignee is not entitled to make any claim in respect of the provident fund amount standing to the credit of the insolvent with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In this connection, reliance is placed on S. 10 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, the relevant part whereof provides : '10. (1) The amount standing to the credit of any member in the fund ... shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member ... and neither the Official Assignee appointed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Pearly Andrew Franz Vs. Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom121; (1965)67BOMLR654; ILR1966Bom325
Chainani, C.J. (1) The appellant was formerly employed in M/s Killick Nixon and Co. Ltd. Bombay. They had established a provident fund for the benefit of their employees. The appellant used to contribute to the that fund. In 1962 the Employee's provident fund Act, 1952 herein after referred to as the act was made applicable to the establishments of M/s Killick Nixon and Co. Ltd. The appellant than become a member of the fund established under the Scheme framed under the act. Under sub -section (2) of S. 15, the accumulations in the provident of fund of this employers become liable to the transferred t the fund established under the provisions of the act. The appellant retired from service in the beginning of 1964. On 16th June 1964 he was adjudicated insolvent.(2) The Official Assignee then addressed letter to the Regional provident fund commissioner and also to the Appellant's ex-employers asking them not to pay to the appellant the amounts lying to his credit in hi provident fund acc...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Ironside Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom126; (1965)67BOMLR644; ILR1966Bom312
Chainani, C.J. (1) This is appeal by the original defendants against the order made by the Mr. Justice K.K. Desai directing the defendants to pay court -fee on the third party note taken out by them against the second respondent. On 5th September 1959 the second respondents entreated into a contract with the first respondents who are the original plaintiffs, for the supply of manages are to the plaintiffs. The contract provided that the material shall be re - routed through the state Trading corporation of the India ltd. I.e. through the defendants. On these day the appellants defendants entered into a contract with the first respondents for the supply of managers are to the first respondents. The appellants also entered into a contract with the first respondents for the supply of manganese are of the in first respondent. The appellants also entered into a contract with the second respondents, who agreed to supply the manages are to the appellants. The arrangements arrived to the there...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Baburao Sawant and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom109; (1966)68BOMLR187; 1967CriLJ440; ILR1966Bom803
Naik, J.(1) These 84 applications, which have been filed by the detenus under Se action 491 of the Criminal Procedure code and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus, raise common questions of fact and law and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.(2) For deciding the material points raised in these applications, a few facts, which are, more or less, common with variations of dates and other minor details which do not affect the decision of the case, may be outlined as follows:(3) The general pattern of the facts in all these cases is as follows: On 29th December 1964, orders of detention were passed by the Commissioner of Police against some of the detenus under Rule 30 (1) (b) of of Defence of India Rules, 1962, framed by virtue of Se action 3 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. In some cases, these orders were passed on 30th December 1964. In respect of the applicants in Criminal Applications Nos. 465 to 481 of 1965, the orders o...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ashru Jaiwant Tribhuvan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom240; (1965)67BOMLR893; ILR1966Bom610; 1967MhLJ220
Patel, J.1. These are two appeals under the Workman's compensation Act by the employees.[2] The point involved in of some importances, and that is why these matters were referred to a Bench. The facts in the first Appeal No, 297 of 1964 are that the respondents Ashru was employed by the Appellants Sugar Mills as a labourer. An accident occurred on 25th September 1962 in the course of the Respondents employment. As a result of this accident, the Respondents suffered a simple fracture of the right and left calcareous bones of the feet. This injury and even after recovery, made him practically unfit to do the work which he was accustomed to do. He, therefore made an application for compensation under the Workman's compensation act in respect of this injury. The civil surgeon who examined him on the 8th May 1963 issued a certificate where he has described the injuries as simple fractures of right and left calcaneum, and Doctor gave evidence to suggest that the disability was a permanent pa...
Tag this Judgment!Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani Vs. J.S. Bajaj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom133; (1965)67BOMLR721; ILR1966Bom307; 1966MhLJ22
Patel, J.(1) The petition is one of the sons of respondents No.3. The petitioners and respondents Nos 4, 5 and 6, who are the other sons of respondents No.3, along with 2 others sons of the respondents No.3 framed a joint Hindu family before the partition of 1947 and a were residing in sindh. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 are the sons to respondents No.3 by the one wife. The the two sobhraj and Lokumal were the sons by a predeceased wife. In 1944 respondents No.3 and his sons, who are now before the court, filed a suit for partition of the court of First Class sub - judges, Nawabshah, against the two sons sobharaj and Lokumal. Large number of the properties were included in the suit. It resulted ino a decree on the 2nd December, 1944, whereby one property described as item No.A of schedule 'D' to the plaint was awarded to one of his sons and the properties which fell t the share to the plaintiff were awarded to them jointly. After their migration of they filed claims in re...
Tag this Judgment!Bashir HussaIn Peshimam Vs. Gulam Mohomed Ismail Peshimam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom253; (1965)67BOMLR748; 1966CriLJ1395; ILR1966Bom770
ORDER[1] This criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioners bashir Hussain peshimam against the order passed by the learned presidency Magistrate 28th Court, Esplanades, Bombay on 5t February 1965, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application of petitioners for a direction that the special prosecutor or the collectors of the central Excise be directed to furnish him with copies of certain statements and documents in their possession or in the alternative to issue a summons under S. 94 of the Criminal procedure code, directing the special prosecutor or the collectors, of central excise to produce such statement, nd documents for his inspection before the inquiry started.[2] The facts giving rise to the application made by the petitioner to the learned magistrate and the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereon may be state, on 3rd August 1964, Shri H.R. Jokhi Assistant collectors of central Excise Marine Preventive Division Central Excise Bombay fi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat Vs. Dr. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR690
Patel, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts and considering a point not material to this report, proceeded.] The respondent relied for relief in the present case on Section 13(1), Clause (1) of the Bombay Rent Act. So far as relevant, the section reads:Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act (but subject to the provisions of Section 15), a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied-(1) that the tenant after coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence.The question is whether the petitioner had acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence. If he had, then the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises; but if he had not, then the landlord would not be entitled to possession of the premises.2. Mr. Paranjpe contends that the Courts below have not considered the question as to what the phrase 'acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence' ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›