Mumbai Court August 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.
Sarottamrao Vishwanathrao and ors. Vs. Ramrao Narayanrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom237; (1966)68BOMLR10; ILR1966Bom707; 1966MhLJ235
[1] This is an appeal by the original defendants against the appellate judgment and order of remand of the Respondent plaintiff's suit passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, in Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1961, on June 13, 1963. The above appeal No. 241 of 1961 come to be filed by the Respondent plaintiff's because by his judgment dated September 30, 1961, the joint Civil Judge Junior Division , Aurangabad, held that the Civil court had no jurisdiction to try the plaintiff's Regular Suit No. 36 of the 1959 and that the suit was not tenable in the form in which it was constituted. The learned appellate judge reversed the first finding that the Civil court had no jurisdiction and as regards the second findings, held that the question of tenability was liable to be decided after evidence of parties was recorded and not as preliminary issue as on demurrer.[2] It is once again contended on behalf of the Appellants. [Original Defendants] in this appeal that the Civil court has no juris...
Rajmal Dagaduram Sheth Vs. Kisan Vinayak Gujar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom326; (1965)67BOMLR917; ILR1966Bom702
(1) This second appeal has been filed by a decree-holder whose Darkhast for the execution of his decree was dismissed by the Courts below on the ground of limitation. The decree was passed by the Court of the Civil Judge of Nasik and was transferred for execution to the Court of the civil Judge of Sinnar. The previous Darkhasts were filed by the Decree-holder for the execution of the decree and the last of these Darkhasts was disposed of on 15th April 1958. Then on 16th July 1958 the decree holder filed an application to the Nasik Court in which he stated that a mistake in the name of the third judgment-debtor had occurred in the copy of the decree which the Nasik Court had sent the Sinnar Court along with its transfer certificates, and that the record should be called for from the Sinner-Court and be sent back after correcting the name of the 3rd judgment-debtor in the certified copy. This application was allowed by the Nasik Court on 14th September 1959. The present Darkhast was file...
Anant Janardhan Karandikar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom11; (1966)68BOMLR256; ILR1966Bom663
Naik, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Cr. P. C. and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Habeas corpus. The District Magistrate, Poona, passed an order on 31-3-1965 detaining the petitioner under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The District magistrate stated in his order that he felt it necessary to pass the order of detention with a view of prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order. The petitioner has given his antecedents, past history and the profession he has been following in some detail in his petition. The petitioner is an old man of 64 years of age and is a bachelor. He has alleged that he does not belong to any political party, not has he any affiliations with any political party. He has gone a step further and stated that he is not even a member of any social or cultural institution or organisation. He has not taken any part in any public activity....
Saraswatibai and ors. Vs. Gulab Ajwani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom312; (1966)68BOMLR368; ILR1966Bom981
Patel, J.(1) These petitions seek to challenge the orders of review made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and the Regional Settlement Commissioner.(2) The facts in Special Civil Application No. 1392 of 1964 are: The petitioners are the heirs of one Hassomal alias Hassanand. Hassanand was and the petitioners are displaced persons. In accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, they made applications making claims in connection with their properties left in Pakistan, one being in respect of agricultural land. The Claims Officer, one G. L. Ajwani, rejected the claim ex parte on January 15, 1953. Hassomal applied to the Settlement Officer against the decision. The application was heard by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. He scrutinised the claim and accepted the same to the extent of 414 acres and 4 gunthas. Against this claim, they were allotted 291 standard acres and 2-1/2 units. By as subsequent allotment, dated 12-1-1960, of land at Niza...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›