Mumbai Court August 1966 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.
P.V. Nasik and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom482; (1967)69BOMLR218
K.K. Desai, J. (1) This petition and numerous other petitions are filed in this Court for challenging the validity of the Government Resolution, dated March 18, 1966, as clarified by the two circular letters each dated April 16, 1966. The petitioners also challenge the notices of discharge, each dated April 5, 1966, terminating the services of each of the petitioners and allotting them to services of Zilla Parishads as of and from August 16, 1966. In other petitions also similar notices are challenged. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the notices of discharge and also for a mandamus restraining the Government from allotting the petitioners to the services of Zilla Parishad, Dhulia. (2) The questions arising in this petition being common to several petitions filed in this Court are of general importance in relation to all the Class 3 and Class 4 employees of the State Government (consisting of about 45/55 thousand in all) who as surplus staff, are proposed t...
L.S. Sherlekar Vs. D.L. Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom439; (1968)70BOMLR100; 1968MhLJ253
Patel, J. (1) This reference is made by the Fourth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, who himself is the applicant in the case, and it arises out of somewhat peculiar circumstances.2. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this reference arose is one Sherlekar, and the defendant is one Agarwal. The plaintiff happens to be an Advocate. He instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, being Suit No. 765 of 1964, against the defendant for some money due to him. The case was assigned by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, to the Fifth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division. It appears that the Fifth Joint Civil Judge Mr. Pande, was deputed to Umrer Court for half a month every month, to perform his duties at Umrer. An office order was, therefore, made by the District Judge at Nagpur to the following effect:-'ORDER Dated 26th June 1964. Since Mr. H. S. Pande, Fifth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, has been deputed to Umrer for the period from June 19...
Jagannath Pundlik and ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Onkar Wankhede and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom317; (1967)69BOMLR300; 1967MhLJ126
Patel, J.(1) This petition demonstrates the manner in which some of the Panchayats are working under the Panchayats Act.(2) The dispute between the parties arises out of an election to the village Panchayat of wadshingi, taluq Jalgaon, which took place on May 25, 1966. The result of the election were declared on the next day. At this election petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 1 to 5 were elected. The meeting for the election to the Sarpanch of this Panchayat was fixed originally for July 5, 1966, and then adjourned to July 18, 1966. In the meantime, respondents 6 and 7 filed two election petitions against petitioners 1 and 2 on June 10, 1966. Respondent No. 1 was the Sarpanch elected to the prior Panchayat. He then made an application under section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958, to the Collector for disqualifying the petitioners 1 and 2 on the ground that they were disqualified for being elected as members of the Panchayat because petitioner no. 1 was below the age of 2...
Secretary, Municipal Committee, Achalpur City Vs. Nandkishore and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom413; (1967)69BOMLR303; 1967MhLJ185
Patel, J. (1) Criminal cases pending before the Magistrate against the respondents were withdrawn to this Court by an order. dated July 15, 1966, for decision on important questions of law which involved a reference to constitutional provisions. The dispute is regarding the validity of the terminal tax imposed by the Municipality which is now described as the petitioner. We were told that large number of the litigations were pending in the Magistrate's Court, as the residents within the limits of the Municipality refused to pay the tax. We therefore, treated the matter as very urgent and fixed the hearing in about three weeks before us,. with the consent of respondents.(2) The Municipal Committee since about 1922 was imposing terminal tax in respect of the export and import of goods out of and within its limits. The first notification is, dated October 12, 1922, specifying the items on the export of which terminal tax had to be paid, in List No. 1 and specifying the items of the import...
Ram Bahadur Thakur and Co. and anr. Vs. R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad Priv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom35; (1967)69BOMLR250; ILR1967Bom925; 1967MhLJ106
Patel, J.(1) These two Cross Appeals are filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, directing a decree in terms of the award to be made. As the claim in appeal was substantial the matter was directed to be was substantial the matter was directed to be heard by a Division Bench. The dispute between the parties arose out of an agreement made by the defendant with the plaintiff, whereby the latter agreed to buy and the former agreed to sell 7,500 tons of manganese ore particular quality. The agreement Exhibit P-1 was signed on December 6, 1955 and the last date for the performance of the contract was January 31, 1957. Some quantity of ore was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. Dispute arose in respect of 4,000 tons of manganese ore which was tendered by the defendant to the plaintiff on January 29, 1957 and rest which the plaintiff contended, was never tendered to him i.e. 987 tons. In terms of the contract, the plaintiff had to deposit 25 per cent of the purch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›