Mumbai Court November 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.
Shrinath Brothers Vs. Century Spg. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom443; (1968)70BOMLR219; 1968MhLJ510
ORDER1. This is a revision application under the provisions of Sections 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the Bombay City Civil Court, making a notice of motion for pronouncing judgment in terms of an award absolute and passing a decree in terms of the said judgment.2. The facts leading to this case, briefly stated, are :-That on 7th June 1962, there was an award made against the petitioners in favour of the respondents. On 23rd March 1963, the arbitrator filed the said award in the Court. On 11th April, 1963, notice of filing of the award was issued by the Court and despatched to the petitioners, who are a partnership firm, in a registered cover addressed to the firm. The acknowledgment for this registered cover appears to have been signed on 25th April 1963 by a person signing as Raja Shankar. It is not stated in the acknowledgment as to whether this Raja Shankar was a partner of the petitioners firm or the manager in charge of the business firm or the manager in...
P.V. Masand Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1967
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR387
Vaidya, J.1. This revision application raises an important point of law as to whether an appeal lies from an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions under Section 476B of the said Code, as in force in the State of Maharashtra.2. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded.]3. Mr. Gursahani, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was not right in his view that no appeal lay against the order of the District Magistrate under Section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has also submitted that the order of the District Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction and wrong on merits. However, as the learned Sessions Judge has decided the matter only on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and as I am of the view that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge was wrong, I do not propose to discuss the merits of the case. M...
Parwati Vs. Janabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom77; (1968)70BOMLR517; ILR1969Bom297; 1968MhLJ441
Abhyankar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Bench Judge:(1) Whether the share obtained by a member of a joint Hindu family on partition is and continues to be an interest in joint family property? (2) On the death of such a divided coparcener what is the extent of the interest which his widow would take in that property, if there are other separated coparceners in existence? 2. The questions arise our of a Second Appeal filed by the original defendant Parwati against reversing judgment in the District Court. The facts giving rise to this litigation will be necessary to be detailed to comprehend the nature of the controversy between the parties. One Gadi and his son Santosh formed a joint Hindu family having coparcenary property. That property consisted of land Khasra No. 639 with a total area of 11.40 acres at Katol. It is an admitted position that on 23-5-1946, there was a partition by metes and bounds between Gadi on the one ...
Ramchandra Sheshgiri Kamath Vs. Janardan Vishwanath Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom111; (1968)70BOMLR376; ILR1969Bom766
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the City Civil Court, Bombay dismissing his suit on the preliminary issue that it is barred by res judicata by reason of a previous decision between him and the defendant.2. The plaintiff used to run a tailoring shop at Tribhuvan Road, Girgaum, Bombay. The shop consisted of two rooms and was run by the plaintiff in the name of Kamath Brothers. The plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the two rooms but by an agreement dated the 1st of November 1965, he gave to the defendant the right to conduct the shop for one year. The defendant obtained possession of one of the two rooms under this agreement and at the end of the year, he exercised the option available to him under the agreement for extension of the period mentioned therein. Under the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the shop from the defendant if he failed to pay the monthly royalty for a period of three months. The defendant appear...
The Bengal Coal Supplying Firm Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR254; 1968MhLJ539
Nain, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act against the judgment of the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, dismissing the petitioners' suit for recovery of a sum of Rs, 1,340.50, being damages for loss of a consignment of coal consigned from Pathardihi on the Eastern Railway to Poona.2. The facts leading to the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioners ordered some quantity of coal from Pathardihi on the Eastern Railway. It is agreed that this quantity was 21 tons 3 quintals. The goods were consigned to Poona on January 14, 1963, in wagon No. 30913. The railway receipt states that the goods were to be carried from Pathardihi to Poona. It is not disputed that for some reason or another, the goods came to be transhipped from one railway wagon to another wagon at an intermediate station. The consignment arrived at Poona on or about January 30, 1963. The petitioners claimed re-weighment of the goods before taking deliver...
Shevaram Thadharam Jaisinghani Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom117; (1968)70BOMLR546; 1968MhLJ748
ORDER1. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the defendants for further and better particulars under Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Mody to the maintainability of the Chamber Summons on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as framed under the Rules made by the High Court under Section 122 of that Code, in so far as it has not been taken out before the returnable date of the Summons which was the 26th day of June 1967. The answer of Mr. R. P. Bhat on behalf of the defendants to that preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff is two-fold: first, that the Rules framed under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the Original Side of the High Court and, Secondly, that, if it is held that they do apply to the Original Side of the High Court, there has been no proper service of the Summons on the defendants, is view of the fact t...
Meghji Kanji Patel Vs. Kundanman Chamanlal Mehtani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom387; (1968)70BOMLR253
ORDER(1) The opponent filed on 22nd April 1964 a Summary Suit in the court of Small Causes against the petitioner, being suit No. 992/3041 of 1964 alleging that the amount of Rs. 3,000 was due to the opponent under receipt dated 1st May 1961 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the opponent. The writ of Summons of the suit was sent to the petitioner by registered post, but the cover containing the same was returned unserved through the postal endorsement 'refused'. As the petitioner remained absent at the hearing of the suit, an ex parte decree was passed against him.(2) The petitioner made an application to the Small Causes for setting aside the ex parte decree. In his application which was on oath, he stated that the registered letter containing the writ of summons was not tendered to him at any time. The learned Judge, however, refused to set aside the ex parte decree, inter alia, on the ground that under S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and S. 27 of the Ind...
Harisingh Isharsingh Vs. Chandansingh Pratapsingh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom380; (1968)70BOMLR251; 1968MhLJ519
ORDER(1) The petitioner filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court in forma pauperis, for establishing his ownership of a taxi and for its possession. The court fee payable on the plaint was Rs. 925. The learned Registrar of the Bombay City Civil Court, who heard the pauper petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner owned 1/4th share in land, admeasuring 78 acres, in Punjab. According to the respondent, the value of this 1/4th share was Rs. 2,655. This figure was not challenged by the petitioner and it may be taken to be accepted. The learned Registrar held that the petitioner was not a pauper and was not entitled to sue in forma pauperis. He, therefore, adjourned the petition to enable the petitioner to pay the proper court fee.(2) The petitioner has come in revision against the above order of the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil Court. His principal argument is that this land in which he owns 1/4th share is the only means of his livelihood and that apart from income of th...
Kasturchand Kisanlal Chandak Vs. District Judge, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom381; (1968)70BOMLR285; 1968MhLJ329
Deshmukh, J.(1) The petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 6 at Katol, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. He contested the municipal election which took place on June 3, 1967. He was elected as a member and the election results were published in the Gazette on June 9, 1967. On June 19, 1967, respondent No. 2 filed an election petition in the Court of the District Judge at Nagpur. In that petition it was alleged that the petitioner was disqualified from becoming a member of the Municipal Council under the provisions of Section 16(1) (h) of the Maharastra Municipalities Act, 1965. It was also alleged that the petitioner had imported one tin of paint sometime in September 1965. A bill in that behalf was sought to be served on 29-8-1966 but he declined to accept it. Hence the same bill, which is now Exhibit 16, was sent under registered cover which he received on September 2, 1966. The dues under that bill were not paid during the entire period when the petitioner sought election and got elected...
Syed Mahaboob Raju Vs. Habibsha Garibsha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR252; 1968MhLJ494
Nain, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner alleges that he is the owner of Survey Nos. 54 and 55 situated in village Angalgaon, Taluka Partur, District Parbhani, and that he is in possession of the said lands. The opponent filed against the petitioner a suit in the Court of the Mamlatdar at Partur, under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act II of 1906, alleging that he was in possession of the suit lands and that the petitioner was causing obstruction to him. On October 28, 1963, the Mamlatdar dismissed the suit holding that the opponent was not in possession of the said lands. Against this, the opponent filed a revision application before the Collector. This revision application was heard by the Deputy Collector and by a judgment dated November 29, 1964, he allowed the revision application. He set aside the finding of fact of the Mamlatdar that the opponent was not in possession of the suit lands.2. Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »