Mumbai Court December 1966 Judgments
P.K. Porwal (by Manager) Vs. Labour Court, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1966
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR104; [1968(16)FLR364]; (1968)IILLJ505Bom
Wagle, J.1. Sri Quazi; who appears for the petitioners, contends that the provisions which were considered by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Company v. Gopal Bhiva : (1963)IILLJ608SC are not the same as are now obtainable. The provisions that were considered by the Supreme Court in that case were provisions of the Limitation Act of 1908 which is no longer applicable to the present state of circumstances. The Limitation Act of 1908 was repealed and the Limitation Act 36 of 1963 was brought in force. The Act came into force on 1 January, 1964 and the application were made by the workers after April, 1964. 2. Sri Quazi contends that there were several changes brought about in the law of limitation which materially affect the question of limitation in regard to applications made in industrial disputes. In the first instance; the word 'application' which was not defined in the old Limitation Act of 1908 has now been defined. 3. Secondly, it was pointed out by Sri Qazi th...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathpuri Guru Kamaleshwarpuri Vs. Godabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom25; (1968)70BOMLR749; 1967MhLJ813
(1) This second appeal raises an important question relating to the interpretation of section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under the following circumstances:- One Kamaleshwar Puri died on 23rd March 1938, leaving behind him two widows - Godabai, and Rangubai- and a fairly large estate. Godabai, the senior widow, adopted Defendant No. 2 Jagannathpuri to has deceased husband. The date of adoption does not appear on record, but is of on consequence. Some time after the adoption, the parties found that they cannot pull on together. Hence partition-deed (exhibit P-11) was executed between the two widows and the adopted son, on 13th April 1950. Defendant No. 2 the adopted son, was minor at that time and was represented by a guardian. After attaining majority, Defendant No. 2 has not disowned the partition, but the present litigation has continued on the basis that the Defendant No. 2 accepts that partition as a good and binding partition on all. In that partition, the estate of K...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Karsandas Thakkar Vs. Lala Ambu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom98; (1967)69BOMLR502; 1967MhLJ861
ORDER(1) This is an appeal against an order made under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. The short facts are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of his monetary dues from the defendant, being Suit No. 340 of 1952. After a decree was made in that suit, a Darkhast was filed, being Darkhast No. 440 of 1957 for sale of the property. This Darkhast was filed on November 17, 1960. The property was sold in execution proceedings and it was purchased by the plaintiff and the sale was finally confirmed on February 24, 1961. The defendant-appellant took an appeal to the District Court and it was dismissed on January 29, 1962. The present application for possession was filed on January 29, 1965, the trial Court directed possession to be delivered. Then the defendant made an application for recalling of the order on the ground that the present application was barred by limitation. The contention was that the new Limitation Act of 1963 had come into force on January 1, 19...
Tag this Judgment!The Sholapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Malkarjun Kalyanappa Vajirkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom424; (1967)69BOMLR454; 1967MhLJ752
(1) This is an appeal by the Sholapur Municipal Corporation against a decree of injunction granted by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff.(2) The plaintiff filed the suit under the following circumstances: The plaintiff-respondent is a shop at Sholapur dealing in coconut and safety matches. As such dealer, it used to import both these articles and at the time of import paid octroi duty for the same and got import octroi bills on such payment, that from time to time it exported the very articles that it had imported outside municipal limits of Sholapur Municipal Corporation, and that after making such export, it applied for refund of the octrois paid by it. Its allegation is that it attached the receipted import bill and an export certificate relating to the goods signed by the Naka Karkun along with its application for refund. The Commissioner, however, insisted on the plaintiff's furnishing further particulars as per a general circular Ex. 615, issued by the Municipal Corporat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. HusseIn Kasim Kanhekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ624Bom; 1967MhLJ889
1. This is an appeal by the State against the appellate order confirming the order passed by the trial Court which has set aside the order dated 23 June, 1951, passed by the Special Superintendent, Land Records, Ratnagiri, removing the plaintiff from the post of a temporary cadastral surveyor, Knot Survey Department, Ratnagiri, as it was alleged to be null and void and inoperative. The declaration given by the trial Court that the plaintiff continued to be in service, is also confirmed by that appellate Court. The facts of this case are as follows. 2. The plaintiff respondent was appointed as a temporary cadastral surveyor on 15 February, 1947, and he continued as such till 28 June, 1951, on which date he was removed from service. On 12 February, 1950, complaints were received against the plaintiff from the villagers of Vaghrat that the plaintiff was corrupt and used to accept food, etc., without paying for the same and he also used to demand money as illegal gratification from them. U...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Dada Sawant and anr. Vs. Ramu Dada Sawant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom204; (1967)69BOMLR633; 1967MhLJ961
(1) By his order dated the 26th September 1966 the learned Registrar has held that First Appeal Stamp No. 8263 of 1966 filed by the defendants in this Court is barred by limitation. The defendants have filed this note under Rule 7(1) of the Appellate Side Rules for revision of the Registrar's Order. As the question is of general importance I would like to take my reasons for holding that the Registrar is right in the view he has taken.(2) In a suit filed by the respondent against the appellants, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, delivered his judgment on the 23rd of September 1965. He decreed the suit but directed:-'Decree to be drawn up subject to the payment of necessary Court-fee stamp by the plaintiff who shall recover the same from the two defendants as per above order.'The respondent paid the necessary Court fees on the 16th of December 1965 and the decree was drawn up on the 23rd of December 1965. The appellants applied for certified copies of the judgment and ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay (Now State of Maharashtra) Vs. HusseIn Kasim Kanhekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom290; (1967)69BOMLR568
(1) This is an appeal by the State against the appellate order confirming the order passed by the trial Court which has set aside the order dated June 28, 1951 passed by the Special Superintendent, Land Records, Ratnagiri, removing the plaintiff from the post of a temporary Cadestral Surveyor. Khot Survey Department, Ratnagiri, as it was alleged to be null and void and inoperative. The declaration given by the trial Court that the plaintiff continued to be in service, is also confirmed by the appellate Court. The facts of this case are as follows:-The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a temporary Cadestral Surveyor on February 15, 11947, and he continued as such till June 28, 1951, on which date he was removed from service. On February 12, 1950, complaints were received against the plaintiff from the villages of Vaghrat that the plaintiff was corrupt and used to accept food etc. without paying for the same and he also used to demand money as illegal gratification from them. Upon in...
Tag this Judgment!Asaram Sakharam Bhandwaladar Vs. the Commissioner, Aurangabad Division ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom367; (1967)69BOMLR244; 1967MhLJ528
K.K. Desai, J.(1) The Petitioner was elected to Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad some time before July 12, 1966, Under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, as a member of the Zilla Parishad he was an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti of Kannad. It was alleged against him that he had failed to attend the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti from May 27, 1965 to September 14, 1965, for a period exceeding 3 months. It was alleged that since he had remained absent for the above period and not attended the Panchayat Samiti meetings he had vacated the office of the membership of the Panchayat. The Opponent NO. 2 Harishchandra Bhagaji filed an application in that connection and submitted it to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. That application was forwarded to the Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Commissioner called for a report in that connection and the Executive officer of the Z. P. submitted his report to the Commissioner. The Commissioner issued a notice dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangu Vithoba and ors. Vs. Rambha Dina and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom382; (1967)69BOMLR559; 1967MhLJ341
L.M. Paranjpe, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal directed against an appellate decision whereby the decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one-third share was modified by decreeing her full claim for possession of property on the basis of a Will.2. The suit property was held by one Bondku, who was the last surviving member of the family He died on 10-8-1957, at the age of 95, leaving behind him three daughters --the plaintiff Rambha, defendant No. 4 Rangoo, and defendant No. 1 Bangoo One other daughter Kewna had died issueless during the lifetime of Bondku. The defendant No. 4 Rangoo has two sons--Nathu. defendant No 5, and Dayaram, defendant No. 6. The defendant No. 1 Bangoo. who is the youngest of the daughters, has two sons--Ragho, defendant No. 2, and Sitaram, defendant No. 3, and a daughter Vithabai. This Sitaram, son of Bangoo died without any heirs and his name was struck off from the suit Bondku had left the property in suit at the time of his de...
Tag this Judgment!Excelsior Film Exchange and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom322; (1967)69BOMLR878; 1968MhLJ126
ORDER(1) I was not inclined to deliver any judgment but I propose to deliver a short judgment as I think that the matter involves serious but somewhat important question relation to the claim of privilege of document by public officials.(2) The matter arises out of a chamber summons taken out by the petitioners on November 22,196, requiring the respondents to disclose certain documents set out in the schedule A to the chamber summons. One of the documents of which disclosure is sought for is item 16. Being and annexure to G. L. I. 50/66 dated 13-7-1966 as also said G. L .I. referred to in connection with the screening committee in paragraph 19 of the third Respondent's affidavit in sur-rejoinder . (3) In paragraph 19 of the affidavit made by the third Respondent in sur-rejoinder it has inter alia been stated: 'I say that the screening Committees are to be appointed by the 2nd Respondent and I deny that the 4th Respondent is to appoint aforesaid statement is still further supported by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »