Mumbai Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Abdul HusseIn Essaji Arsiwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR174(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question raised on this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to an amount claimed by the assessee as allowance under section 9(1)(iv) as ground rent to which the property was subject. 2. The assessee is the owner of one half share in certain properties, which are assessed to tax under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessment year in question is 1958-59 for which the relevant previous year was the financial year ended on 31st March, 1958. The properties were constructed on land belonging to the former G.I.P. Railways and now forming part of the assets of the Central Railways. The land was taken on lease from the railways by the assessee and one other person and constructions were put up on the land by them. The last of the leases in favour of the assessee and the other co-owner expired on the 30th June, 1951. The ground rent payable under the lease was Rs. 254 per month. After the expiry of this lease, assessee and ...
AminuddIn Sheikh HafizuddIn Vs. Bhaoji Hiramansa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR421; 1968MhLJ452
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, dismissing a revision application filed by the petitioner before that officer against an order of allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Naib Tahsildar, on July 12, 1966.2. The petitioner claims to be a landless person. 3 acres and 17 gunthas of land out of field survey number 94 with a total area of 17 acres and 26 gunthas at village Talegaon Bk., in Akot Taluq of Akola district, were declared surplus and vesting in the State. After possession was taken under a Panchanama, proceedings were initiated before respondent No. 2, that is, the Naib Tahsildar, Akot, for grant of that land to persons eligible under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The original records of the proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer have been made available at the hearing. Even though infor...
Kolhapur Sugar Mills, Ltd. Vs. Syed Taki Bilgrami and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ800Bom
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner-company, which runs a sugar mill at Kolhapur and which also owns 79 acres of land on which, by rotation, sugarcane crop is grown by it, for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction against respondent 1, who is the president of the industrial court, Bombay, quashing the award dated 28 October, 1966 made by him in this matter. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment are that the petitioner-company originally owned an agricultural estate of 1,135 acres of land on which sugarcane was cultivated by it, but after the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1951, was passed, under the provisions of that Act, a major part of the estate owned by the petitioner-company was taken over by the Government and handed over to the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, leaving only 79 acres of agricultural land for the petitioner-company itself, as...
The Presidency Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. the Hindustan Leather Industri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom84; (1968)70BOMLR373; 1969MhLJ49
ORDER1. This is an application dated 29th October 1964 for execution of a decree dated 12th December 1932 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. in Special Civil Suit No. 84 of 1952. The application has been filed by the Bank of Karad Ltd. because by an order dated 26th April 1962 made by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 44A(4) of the Banking Companies Act. 1949, the judgment creditors, the Presidency Industrial Bank Ltd., were amalgamated with the applicants. The amount claimed is Rs. 28,997.75 and costs. The mode in which the assistance of the Court is required is by issue of notices under Order 21, Rules 16 and 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by attachment and sale of certain properties of the judgment-debtors. Pursuant to a chamber order dated 7th May 1965 the execution application was amended by substituting the names of the two sons of the judgment-debtor No.2 R. G. Vijayakar as his legal representatives in his place, on the allegation that the said...
Zainab Bai, Wife of Hussainbhai Ebrahim and ors. Vs. Navayug Chitrapat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1967
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas735(Bom)
Nain, J. 1. This is a revision application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 7th October, 1963, of a Judge of the Small Cause Court at Poona, rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint in a suit filed by them against their tenants for eviction. 2. The facts leading to this matter are that the petitioners have filed a suit for possession of certain premises consisting of three plots, included in premises at 38, Shankar Shet Road, Poona. The petitioners claim to be the owners of this property and they let it out to the respondents on 22nd August, 1946, for a period of 20 years under a registered lease deed and that the standard rent of the premises is Rs. 500 per mensem. The petitioners allege that the respondents are in arrears of rent and have not complied with a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The claim of the petitioners has been opposed by the respondents on various grounds. 3. On 3rd ...
Zainab Bai and ors. Vs. Navayug Chitrapat Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom194; (1968)70BOMLR390; ILR1969Bom315
ORDER1. This is a revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 7th October 1963 of a Judge of the Small Clause Court at Poona, rejecting the petitioners' application for amendment of the plaint in a suit filed by them against their tenants for eviction.2. The facts leading to this matter are that the petitioners have filed a suit for possession of certain premises consisting of three plots, included in premises at 38. Shankar Shet Road, Poona. The petitioners claim to be the owners of this property and they let it out to the respondents on 22nd August 1946 for a period of 20 years under a registered lease deed and that the standard rent of the premises is Rs. 500 per mensem. The petitioners allege that the respondents are in arrears of rent and have not complied with a notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The claim of the petitioners bas been opposed by the respondents on various grounds.3. On 3rd July 1963...
Narayan Hari Kumbhare Vs. P.K. Porwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1970Bom380; (1968)70BOMLR415; ILR1968Bom753
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application made by certain persons claiming to be the employees of the respondent No. 1, who is a Bidi Manufacturer.2. Several applications were filed before the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at Gondia, claiming certain amounts from respondent No. 1. At page 13 of the paper book is one specimen of such application. In their application the claimants averred that they have been employees in the establishment of respondent No. 1, that is, P. K. Porwal, Bidi manufacturer, as bidi rollers. To their application they impleaded one Zibal Tukaram Meshram as opponent No. 2, This Zibal is the second respondent in this petition. They stated that Zibal, the respondent No. 2, is a person who supervises the work of the establishment of bidi manufacturer. They claimed that ...
Narayan Hari Kumbhare Vs. Porwal (P.K.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR206]; (1969)ILLJ21Bom; 1968MhLJ476
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application made by certain persons claiming to be the employees of respondent 1, Who is a bidi-manufacturer. 2. Several applications were filed before the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at Gondia, claiming certain amounts from respondent 1. At p. 13 of the paper book is one specimen of such application. In their application the claimants averred that they have been employees in the establishment of respondent 1, that is, P. K. Porwal, bidi manufacturer, as bidi-rollers. To their application they impleaded one Zibal Tukaram Meshran as opponent 2. This Zibal is respondent 2 in this petition. They stated that Zibal, respondent 2, is a person who supervises the work of the establishment of bidi-manufacturer. They claimed that the opposite party had rejected out of th...
State Vs. Mahamed HussaIn KakroddIn Maniyar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom344; (1968)70BOMLR247; 1968CriLJ1231
ORDER(1) This is an application for bail under the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are charged by the Sholapur Police with offences under Section 120-B I. P. C. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 30 and 25 of the Arms Act, Section 5 of Explosives Act. Section 6 of Poisons Act. Section 82 of the Prohibition Act and Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. (2) According to the Police, the petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and they are all the proprietors of two firms by name of 'Hazi M. F. Maniyar and Sons' and 'M. M. Maniyar'. According to the Police, all the petitioners look after the said two businesses and that the said two businesses have two godowns wherein goods of these firms are stored. According to the petitioners, however, 'Hazi M. F. Maniyar and Sons' is the partnership firm in which only petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are partners under a deed of partnership, copy of which they have prod...
Narayanrao Madhaorao Datarao Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR425; 1968MhLJ367
Abhyankar, J.1. The applicants are nine out of ten accused who are standing their trial before the Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1967. By this revision application, the applicants challenge the correctness of the order of the Sessions Judge, Amravati, passed on October 17, 1967, directing postponement of the whole trial of all the accused awaiting report of the Government under Section 466 of the Criminal Procedure Code because one of the accused, namely accused No, 2 Purushottam, was reported to be of unsound mind.2. The applicants along with original accused No. 2 Purushottam, were committed to stand trial on the charge of having caused the death Of one Motiramji Kadam and his son Dadarao 011 October 18, 1966, in Rajapeth locality of Amravati town.3. The trial commenced before the Sessions Judge, Amravati, on September 18, 1967, and was continued from day to day till September 22, 1967. On that date, the trial was adjourned to October 4, 1967. It is alleged tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »