Mumbai Court June 1966 Judgments
Manohar Vithal Velankiwar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR379(Bom)
Tambe, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under sub-section (1) of section 65 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (34 of 1953), hereinafter referred to as the Act : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deceased was the owner of the entire property valued at Rs. 2,47,79 (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative then, whether the assets owned by the deceased were subject to a charge of maintenance of his wife and whether the Assistant Controller should have made any allowable in respect of the such a charge ?' 2. These two questions arise thus. Deceased Vithal Ganesh Velankiwar was a karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of his wife, Girjabai, and his three sons, Pandurang, Manohar and Sudhakar. There was a partition in the family on 4th September, 1947, as a result of which one of the sons, Pandurang Ganesh Velankiwar, separated from the family under a deed of partition after takin...
Tag this Judgment!Hemchand Mahabir Prasad Singhania Vs. Subhkaran Nandlal Baragra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom361; (1966)68BOMLR857; 1967MhLJ59
ORDER(1) On the 14th August 1964 the petitioner-landlord filed an ejectment suit against the respondent-tenant in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on the ground that the respondent was a defaulter in the payment of rent for more than six months. the summons of the suit was sent by registered post but it was returned by the post office as 'unclaimed' The petitioner thereafter tried to serve the summons through the bailiff of the court but on two days when he went with the bailiff to the premises he found the premises locked and the service, therefore, could not be effected. On the 27th August 1964 he obtained an order from the court for substituted service, which directed the substituted service to be effected by pasting the summons on the premises and sending a copy thereof by registered post. Since the defendant did not appear even thereafter, an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff was passed on the 10th November 1964. The plaintiff executed the said ex parte decree and obta...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswatibai Vs. Bhikamchand Premsukhdas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom158; (1966)68BOMLR954
Tambe, C.J.(1) Facts in brief are: One Laxminarayan, father of Kishan Gopal, the second respondent to this petition, was the landholder of suit field, S. No.90 situate in village Belkhed, taluka Akot, District Akola. He had leased that field to one Bikamchand, respondent no. 1, and the first respondent had acquired the status of a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (Act No. 24 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Berar Leases Act), By giving a notice under sub-section (i) of section 9 of the Berar Leases Act, and following the prescribed procedure, Laxminarayan had terminated the tenancy of Bhikamchand and had obtained possession of the aforesaid field on 3rd July 1955. Laxminarayan died on 20th October 1955 and his son Krishna Gopal succeeded to his estate and was in possession of the said field. The State Legislature enacted the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act (Act No. XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Govind Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Colle ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1970Bom301
Tambe, C.J.1. The question that falls for consideration is whether absence of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the State Government as well as to the Registrar of Public Trusts is fatal to the suit instituted under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951(Act XXX of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act)? The question arises thus. 2. There is one Deosthan at Mangrul-Dastagir in Amravati district, which is known as Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan. The appellant Chandrakant filed an application before the Registrar of Public Trusts, purporting to be one under Section 4 of the Act, wherein he claimed that the aforesaid Sansthan was not a public trust, but was a private trust belonging to his family and o which he was the trustee. He therefore prayed that the trust be not registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act. 3. The Registrar by his order dated 1-3-1955 held that the trust was a public trust and it appears that an entry to that effect, in c...
Tag this Judgment!Nethram and ors. Vs. Shankarlal Dhorulaji Paliwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom13; (1966)68BOMLR852; ILR1967Bom87
Tambe, C.J. (1) Facts in brief are: One Ganpat, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners before us was a tenant of S. Nos. 61/80, 81, 95/2, and 95/3 situated in Mouja Parsodi, Taluka Arvi, District Wardha. The landlord of these fields at the material time was the first opponent Shankerlal. Shankerlal gave a notice of date 16-11-19598 to Ganpat under Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, as it then stood for termination of his tenancy. He also instituted proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the said Act for obtaining possession of the fields from Ganpat. While the proceedings were pending, the Act was amended and certain amendments were effected in Section 38. On 7th February 1961, Shankerlal gave another notice under Section 38 determining the tenancy of Ganpat, and he also filed another application under sub-section (2) of Section 36 of obtaining possession of the fields from Ganpat. This application was fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›