Mumbai Court June 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.
Mahadeo Gopal Mone Vs. Rameshwar Sadashiv Mone and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom323; (1968)70BOMLR89; 1968MhLJ407
(1) This is a second appeal by the widow of the plaintiff who succeeded substantially in the trial court but lost to some extent in the appellate court. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows (2) One Damodar died in 1918 leaving behind him his widow Laxmibai, two sons Sadashiv and Gopal and 5 daughters Vatsalabai, defendant No. 1, is the widow of Gopal: Sadashiv left two sons Rameshwar defendant No. 2 and Laxman; Laxman died in 1941 leaving behind him his son Sureshchandra, defendant No. 4. Mahadeo is the adopted son of Vatsalabai, defendant No. 1, and he is the present plaintiff. The record shows that Sadashiv separated from his father Damodar on April 21, 1914 and thereafter Damodar and his son Gopal continued in 1918 as stated earlier. As there was no male member in the family, apparently Rameshwar and Laxman succeeded to the property of Damodar as found by the learned Judges below, and Laxmibai and Vatsalabai had only rights of maintenance in the pr...
Dagdu Vithoba Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR767; 1968MhLJ129
Chandbachud, J.1. This is a petition by two voters challenging1 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution certain important stages of an election to the Jalgaon Municipal Council due to be held on July 1, 1967. The petitioners claim to be interested in contesting the forthcoming elections, and stated broadly, their grievance is that the delimitation of constituencies is arbitrary, that the list of voters was not kept for public inspection for the requisite period and that three seats reserved for women were allotted to some three wards indiscriminately.2. Prior to June 15, 1966, Municipal Administration in the State of Maharashtra was governed by four different enactments which were applicable in the different areas comprised in the State. Those enactments were: (1) the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901; (2) the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925; (3) the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922; and (4) the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956. With a view t...
Bhima Tima Dhotre Vs. the Pioneer Chemical Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR683; 1968MhLJ879
Vimadalal, J.1. After Mr. Poonawalla had examined all his witnesses but before he closed his case, Mr. Poonawalla applied that the post-card dated August 22, 1958, which had been marked X for identification, be admitted in evidence as an exhibit, as the same has been duly proved by the Evidence of plaintiff No. 2 who has deposed to its handwriting as well as signature. In support of that application, Mr. Poonawalla has not relied upon any authority, but has advanced the simple contention that once a document is proved it must be admitted in evidence, and that once it is admitted in evidence he is entitled to rely on its contents. As the question is, however, of considerable importance and occurs very frequently in the course of trials in Courts, I am bound to consider all the authorities on the same.2. Mr. Poonawalla's application was opposed by Mr. B. J. Kapadia on behalf of the defendants who relied in support of his objection on the decision in the case of Madholal Sindhu v. Asian A...
Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1967
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR872
Mody, J. 1. This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents being the State of Maharashtra, two Special Land Acquisition Officers and the Commissioner of the Bombay Division. By this Petition the petitioner challenges the validity of certain Notifications issued and directions passed under the Land Acquisition Act. The lands, in respect of which the notifications and directions have been issued, divide themselves into four groups.2. The first group consists of two pieces of land, being Gat No. 21, Hissa No. 3, admeasuring A. 1-12-12, and Gat No. 109, Hissa No. 2, admeasuring A. 0-38-8, all situated in the village Ilthan. The petitioner is the owner of the former and a tenant of the latter. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 11th October 1963, was published in the Gazette of that date. Certain lands are specified in the Schedule to that notification and include the lands in the first gro...
Gajadhar Ramchandra Agarwal Vs. Abdul Munaf Mahemudmiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR59; 1967MhLJ877
Padhye, J.1. The question raised in this revision application is whether if any proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 58, of the Code of Civil Procedure involves issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to-settle, decide or deal with such issues under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1'958, the Civil Court has to stay the proceeding and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination.2. The applicant obtained a compromise decree against opponent No. 1 Abdul Munaf for the payment of the sum of Rs. 3,000 with interest. The amount was made payable by instalments. Before the first instalment was due, the judgment-debtor took proceedings under the Bombay Execution of Decrees (Temporary Postponement) Act, 1959 for the stay of execution. That application was rejected. The applicant thereafter filed an application for execution against opponent No. I for realising the amount tinder the consent decree. During the pendency...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›