Mumbai Court January 1967 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.
Bank of Poona, Now Merged Into Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs. Navrajasthan Co-op ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom106; (1967)69BOMLR504
Patel, J. (1) This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, in a redemption suit.(2) The facts are few and they are as follows:The appellant before us is the Bank of Poona, which is now merged into Sangli Bank Ltd. Defendants Nos. 9 and 10 owned S. Nos. 93, 102 and 107 in Poona, near Bhamburda. They effected a mortgage in respect of these Survey Numbers in favour of the Bank of Poona of February 16, 1949. The mortgage deed is at Ex. 85/9. Thereafter defendants Nos. 9 and 10 sold 4 acres and 34 gunthas to the plaintiffs Navrajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 67,000/-. Out of this amount, the Society retained a sum of Rs. 16,500/- to be paid to the mortgagee, but which it did not pay. Thereafter in 1954, the bank instituted arbitration proceedings and ultimately the award was made a decree of the Court on August 17, 1954, in Suit No. 92 of 1954. In these proceedings the plaintiff-Society was not made a party. On...
Pandharinath Sone Shinde Vs. Ramjan Aimat Musalman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR574; 1967MhLJ871
Palekar, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under Section 3313 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The petitioner is a tenant of Survey No. 191/1/1 admeasuring 3 acres 34 gunthas in village Raver, District Jalgaon. Respondent No. 1 Ramjan is the landlord. The landlord, who had. no other lands, obtained an exemption certificate under Section 88C of the above Act and filed an application for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 33B. All the Courts below have held that the laud was required by respondent No. 1 bona fide for his personal cultivation. There was a difference, however, as to how much land should be given to the landlord. At the date of the application, the petitioner had under his personal cultivation 6 acres and 24 gunthas in Survey No. 200/2. The question, therefore, was raised whether under Section 33B (5) of the Act, that land was to be taken into account for determining how ...
Arvind N. Mafatlal Vs. T.A. Balakrishnan, Deputy Controller of Estate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR449(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. We are concerned in this petition with a notice issued under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (Act 34 of 1953), with a view to reopening an assessment in respect of the estate of the late Navinchandra Mafatlal. The petitioner is the person against whom the notice was issued. He is the son of the deceased and admittedly the accountable party under the Act. The circumstances under which the notice came to be issued are briefly as follows : Navinchandra Mafatlal passed away on 31st of August, 1955, and in due course a return in regard to the assessment of estate duty was filed on behalf of the petitioner by a chartered accountant on 18th February, 1956. The late Navinchandra was the chairman and managing director of a private limited company known as Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Company Ltd., having its registered office in Bombay. The subscribed and paid-up capital of the company consisted of 25,250 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each and 75,750 preference shares of Rs. 100 eac...
State Vs. Bhanuprasad Shyamlal Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Bom378; (1967)69BOMLR530; 1967CriLJ1376; 1967MhLJ394
ORDER(1) This reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 1966 arose in the following manner.(2) The accused Bhanuprasad was being tried for the alleged offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. One Sitalprasad Havildar of Nagpur Central Prision was examined as a prosecution witness on 15th September 1966. He was examined, cross-examined, and discharged. Thereafter some other evidence was recorded on the same day and at the end of the day, the Police Prosecutor who was conducting the case on behalf of the prosecution, filed an application seeking permission of the Court to recall the witness Sitalprasad Havildar and to contradict the said witness with his statement recorded by the investigating officer during investigation.(3) This application was opposed on behalf of the accused as it would cause prejudice to the case. It was contended on behalf of the accused that this witness could not be recalled at the instance of the Prosecutor...
Parvatibai Vs. Shankar Mahadu Varkhade and 5 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Bom428; (1967)69BOMLR383; 1967MhLJ593
Tarkunde, J.(1) These two writ petitions involve a common question of law and can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. The question involved is whether the right of a certificated landlord to apply under section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession of land from an excluded tenant is personal to the certificated landlord and lapses on his death or whether it can be exercised by his successor in interest.(2) The facts involved are very simple. In Special Civil Application No. 1878 of 1964 one Ramchandra obtained a certificate under section 88C of the said Act. After his death his widow, who is the petitioner before us, gave notice terminating the tenancy of the excluded tenant and applied for possession of the leased land under section 33B on 27th March 1962. Her application was allowed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun and the decision was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Collector. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside these decisions an...
Sulochana Dadaji Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom88; (1967)69BOMLR797; 1967MhLJ689
Paranjpe, J.(1) Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties, it is clear to us that the impugned notification will have to be quashed. Field khasra No. 40, area 13.25 acres of village Takli, tahsil Warora, district Chandrapur, was held by the petitioner as its tenure-holder. Several persons in that village applied to the revenue authorities for plots for abadi purposes. On inquiring into these applications the Naib Tahsildar reported to the authorities that the area of the abadi required to be extended and none of the unoccupied lands comprised in the 12 khasra numbers measuring 42.67 acres could be available for that purpose. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, issued his notification, Annexure B, dated 25-2-1965 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 2.50 acres of land from khasra No. 40 area, 13.25 acres, belonging to the present petitioner. Objections to the proposed acquisition was called and the petitioner was noticed to appear before the Land...
National Umbrella Factory Vs. Sharva Sharmik Sangh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ811Bom
Tarkunde, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution by National Umbrella Factory for setting aside two awards passed by an industrial tribunal on references under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the assembly of umbrellas. Till recently the concern belonged to a well-known firm of long standing called Ebrahim Curium & Sons. On account of disputes between the partners of Ebrahim Curium & Sons, a suit for the dissolution of the partnership was filed on the Original Side of this Court in 1963. During the pendency of the suit, the concern was closed for about four months from 20 November, 1963. Some of the partners of Ebrahim Curium & Sons then formed the present petitioner-firm, National Umbrella Factory, and by a consent order the petitioner-firm took over the business of Ebrahim Curium & Sons as a going concern on 11 April, 1964. In May 1964, the workmen who claimed to be the employees of the petitioner-firm, and who were rep...
Central India Agencies, Calcutta Vs. Laxminath Brijkishore and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom222; (1968)ILLJ616Bom; 1967MhLJ937
Per Paranjpe, J.1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, dated 3 January, 1966, whereby the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner were overruled. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm, with its head office at Calcutta and a branch at Nagpur. On 1 June, 1964, the petitioner firm appointed respondent 1 as a salesman on probation, at a consolidated salary of Rs. 400 per month. Finding that the service of the respondent was not to its satisfaction, the firm gave repeated warnings to the respondent to show some improvement. Being of the view that he had not shown any improvement despite warnings given to him the petitioner did not confirm him and by the letter, dated 10 February, 1965, informed him that his services were no longer required. He was called upon to clear his accounts and to receive payment of all his dues from the petitioner. Respondent 1 did not accept that his work was unsati...
General Radio and Appliances, Ltd., Bombay Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ439Bom
AWARD 1. These are references under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the respective State Governments of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Bihar and Mysore for arbitration of disputes between General Radio and Appliances, Ltd., and its workmen at Bombay, Calcutta, New Delhi, Madras, Patna and Bangalore in respect of demands for wage-scales, dearness allowance, etc. 2. The arbitration referred to me under S. 10A for the Bombay workmen is in respect of the following demands : (1) Scales of pay. - The existing scales of pay shall be revised as under with effect from 1 January 1966 : (a) Grade 1 (sweepers/cleaners) : Rs. 30 - 3 - 60 - 5 - 90 - 6 - 150. (b) Grade 2 (watchmen/peons/packers/Hamals, etc.) : Rs. 35 - 3 - 50 - 5 - 85 - 7 1/2 -130 - 10 - 200. (c) Grade 3 (drivers) : Rs. 60 - 5 - 85 - 7 1/2 - 130 - 10 - 220. (d) Grade 4 (all junior and senior clerical staff, typist, stenos, mechanics, electricians, salesmen, etc.) : Rs. 90 - 10 - 130 - 12 1/2 - 205 - 15 - 280 - 2...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›