Mumbai Court April 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.
Nihalchand Dalichand Vs. Mumtaz Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR171
Vimadalal, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for enforcement of a mortgage for Rs. 60,000 executed by the defendant in their favour on September 22, 1961. The Mortgage Deed has been tendered and marked exh. F in the proceedings before me. In para. 2 of the plaint it is stated that on the date of the said Mortgage Deed, the plaintiffs, at the request of the defendant, lent and advanced to the defendant a sum of Rs. 60,000 which was agreed to be repaid on March 31, 1962, and that as collateral security for the repayment of the said sum, the defendant mortgaged her immovable property at Lonavala in favour of the plaintiffs. In the course of the hearing before me, it was, however, admitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs themselves that the consideration for the said mortgage mainly consisted of past debts under various promissory notes executed from time to time in favour of the plaintiffs. It was stated by Mr. Karanee, in opening the plaintiffs' case before me, that the ...
Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. Vs. the Maharashtra State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR177; 1968MhLJ185
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Limited, Nagpur, Respondent No. 1 is the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay, and respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioner challenges, by this petition, the validity of a notice dated April 26, 1966, purporting to have been given by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910). That notice is annexure E to the petition, at page 36 of the paper-book, and is as follows:MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDMercantile Bank Building, Fort, Bombay-1. No. PLE-VDB-2(A) 194751.Date 26th April 1966. By Regd. Post A.D. ToM/S. The Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd., Nagpur Branch, Post Box No. 2, Civil Lines, Nagpur.Sub:-Notice under Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to purchase your Electricity Undertaking by Maharashtra State ...
Laxmi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tarachand Harbilas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom250; (1967)69BOMLR629; ILR1967Bom1381; 1967MhLJ97
Kotval, C.J.(1) This petition has been referred to a Division Bench for decision by Mr. Justice Tulzapurkar because the learned Judge entertained some doubt whether he has the power to grant the application made before him. It virtually raised the following question:-'Where an application to restore a suit to file under order 9 rule 9 is itself dismissed for default, whether a further application to restore the application under Order 9 rule 9 to the file will at all lie?'The learned Judge felt that in view of the decision of this Court in D. B. Manke v. B. Walwekar, AIR 1923 Bom 386, such an application might not lie, but there are conflicting authorities on the question.(2) The circumstances under which Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 1966 came to be filed are as follows: The applicant is the liquidator of a company known as the Laxmi Investment Co. Private Ltd. of Akola. He was appointed the liquidator of the company after an order of winding up was passed on 12th February 1962. Thi...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Engineers' Association, Nagpur Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ197Bom
Abhyankar, J. 1. By this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray that the order, dated 11 May, 1966, appointing respondent 2 S. S. Ghisad, as an Executive Engineer, be quashed, and that respondent 2 be restrained from acting as Executive Engineer of respondent 1. Petitioner 1 is an association of Engineers employed by respondent 1, i.e., the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. Petitioners 2 and 3 are employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and also members of the Association. Respondent 1, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is a statutory corporation constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Central Act 54 of 1948). Respondent 1 issued an advertisement in newspapers, inviting applications for the post of Executive Engineers (E and M) in the Board. Annexure A to the petition is a copy of that advertisement. The advertisements was in respect of several posts to be filled including that of Executive Engineers (E and M). Ap...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Engineer's Association, Nagpur, t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom65; (1967)69BOMLR674; 1967MhLJ783
Abhyankar, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners pray that the order dated 11th May S. S. Ghisad, as an Executive Engineer, he quashed and that the second respondent be restrained from acting as Executive Engineer of the first respondent. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of Engineers employed by the first respond i.e., the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The second and the third petitioners are employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and also members of the Association. The first respondent, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is a statutory corporation constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 19480. The first respondent issued an advertisement in news papers, inviting applications for the post of Executive Engineers (E. & M) in the Board Annexure A to the petition is a copy of this advertisement. The advertisement was in respect of several posts to be filled including that of Exec...
Harivansh Lal M. Mehra Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR704; 1967MhLJ1001
Patel, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts and considering the evidence in the case, proceeded.] The first contention is that as the Prevention of Corruption Act did not apply to Goa and as the offence was completed at Goa, the accused could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In order to appreciate the contention, a few facts need be noticed.2. Goa came to be liberated on December 20, 1961, On March 5, 1962, an Ordinance came to be promulgated (Ordinance No. 2 of 1962) for the administration of Goa. This Ordinance recites that the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were acquired with effect from December 20, 1961, by virtue of Sub-clause (c) of Clause (3) of Article 1 of the Constitution. It then proceeds to the enacting Article Thereafter came on March 27, 1962, the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, which is practically in terms similar to the Ordinance. On this very day was enacted the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962, by which...
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Vs. Industrial Court, Nagpur and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom56; (1968)70BOMLR298; ILR1969Bom455; (1968)IILLJ757Bom; 1968MhLJ377
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution filed by Chhotabhai Jethabhai, a bidi merchant. The third respondent Nathu Janu Ukey was employed as a Zal counting Munshi in the petitioner's factory at Bhandara. The petitioner contended that the third respondent had committed acts of misconduct, gross negligence of duty, insubordination and similar offences. A charge-sheet was therefore framed against him in 13-5-1965 and he was given notice to show cause in respect of these charges. The third respondent filed a written statement on 13-5-1965. He was informed that an enquiry officer ordered proceeding his answers, and on considering those statement he held that the charges were proved and the third respondent was dismissed by the order of dismissal to be effective from 1-8-1965.2. The third respondent filed an application challenging the order of dismissal before the Labour Court at Nagpur under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The applicat...
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Vs. Industrial Court, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1967
Reported in: 1967MhLJ40
Abhyankar, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution filed by Chhotabhai Jethabhai a bidi merchant. Respondent 3. Nathu Janu Ukey, was employed as a zal counting munshi in the petitioner's factory at Bhandara. The petitioner contended that respondent 3 had committed acts of misconduct, gross negligence of duty, insubordination and similar offences. A chargesheet was, therefore, framed against him on 13 May, 1965 and he was given notice to show cause in respect of these charges. Respondent 3 filed a written statement. He was informed that an enquiry would be held on 15 May, 1965 at Bhandara. At the enquiry the enquiry officer ordered proceeding to be taken against respondent 3; he put questions to him and recorded his answers, and on considering those statement he held that the charges were proved and respondent 3 was dismissed by the order of dismissal to be effective from 1 August, 1965. 2. Respondent 3 filed an application challenging the order of dismissal before t...
Gram Panchayat, Sawargaon Vs. Jamnaprasad Raghunath Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR801; (1968)ILLJ222Bom; 1968MhLJ71
Abhyankar, J. 1. By this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, gram panchayat, Sawargaon, seeks quashing of the orders of the district industrial court and the State industrial court. The State industrial court by its final order has declared that the change made by the petitioner panchayat in altering the pay and emoluments of Jamnaprasad (respondent 1) is an illegal change within the meaning of S. 41 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The facts giving rise to this petition may now be briefly stated. 2. Jamnaprasad was employed as a pound keeper by the janpad sabha, Katol. Janpad sabha was a local authority constitute under the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, in the old State of Madhya Pradesh. These local Governments continued to function even after the reorganization of the State until the pattern was changed by the Zilla, Parishads Act. Under S. 49 of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Gover...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›