Mumbai Court July 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.
Dattu Apparao Machale and ors. Vs. Digambar Govindrao Shendga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom361; (1968)70BOMLR86; 1968MhLJ355
ORDER(1) This is a revisional application by the judgment-debtors against the order of the H. A. D. R. Court confirmed in appeal. The short facts are that in an application for settlement of debts under the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1956, the debt court made an award under that Act on September 4, 1957, whereby the judgment-debtors were required to make certain payments to the judgment-creditor opponent herein. This award was sent by the Court for registration and it was registered on July 4 1961. The opponent, award holder applied for the execution of the award to the Court on January 21, 1964. The judgment-debtors contended that the execution was barred because the execution was sought beyond a period of three years of the making of the award and Art. 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908, barred the application. Both the Courts below have rejected this contention.(2) The learned trial Judge held that as it is the duty of the Court to register the award and it was register...
Abdul Kardar Haji Hiroli Vs. Mrs. Judah Jacob Cohen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR749; 1967MhLJ985
K.K. Desai, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the appellate order dated November 13, 1964, passed by the Assistant Judge, Poona, in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1964, whereby the learned Judge confirmed the trial Court's order granting the reliefs claimed by the respondents in Darkhast Application No. 1057 of 1963 and dismissed the appellants' appeal with costs.2. The short facts which need to be noticed arc as follows:In 1932 one S.M. Gujarathi was the owner of immovable property bearing No. 356 situated at Vallabhbhai Patel Road, Poona. One J.J. Cohen was the owner of the immovable property bearing No. 357 situated on the southern side of the property of S.M. Gujarathi. There were disputes between these two owners in connection with easements of light and air through the windows in their adjacent buildings. S.M. Gujarathi then filed Suit No. 116 of 1932 for certain injunctions and for enforcing rights of easements. That suit was ultimately carried to this Court in Second Appeal No. 198...
Sharanappa Alias Sharanabasappa Tipama Vs. Veerappa R. Maranbassari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR397; 1968MhLJ629
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff bases his claim on a partnership which is denied by defendant No. 1, or, in the alternative, on co-ownership of certain property, which is also denied by defendant No. 1 who claims the same as his own.2. The suit reached hearing before me at about 1 p.m. yesterday, and after pleadings were read, issues were settled some time after the luncheon recess. Thereafter, Mr. M.H. Shah, who appears for the plaintiff, stated that he desired to open the plaintiff's case, which he is entitled to do under Order XVIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He handed in four compilations containing in the aggregate about 544 pages of correspondence and other documents and, after stating a few dates, he started taking me through relevant portions of various letters, copies of which were to be found in those compilations. Mr. Shah has contended that he is entitled to take me through the documentary evidence on which he relies for proving the plaint...
Basawwa Vs. Limbawwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom309; (1968)70BOMLR50; 1968MhLJ298
(1) This is a second appeal. It was filed on June 17, 1966. Objections were notified on Aug, 17, 1966. Two of the objections were that appeal was beyond time by seven days and the appeal was not properly stamped.(2) The application for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal was filed on October 24, 1966, two months after it was notified. But none of the objections in the second appeal were removed. The Registrar, therefore, refused registration on November 18, 1966. Then on 78th day an application was filed saying that objections were removed and the appeal be registered, being application No. 910/1966. But even then the required court fee on the appeal was not paid. The office re-examined this matter and pointed out that court-fee was not paid. But the said application, curiously enough, it was not stated that the court-fee was not paid and that time be granted for payment of court-fees. Though financial difficulty of the appellant was stated to be the cause for non-removal ...
Union of India Through General Manager Central Railway, T. Bombay Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom294; (1967)69BOMLR843; 1968MhLJ35
ORDER(1) These three revisional applications are filed by the Union of India against decrees of the Small Cause Court allowing the plaintiffs' claim for various amounts in respect of loss sustained by them by reason of the loss of goods consigned by them to various places in varying quantities.(2) The facts are admitted that the goods were lost by reason of the negligence of the Railway Administration. In respect of the claims the plaintiffs had served notices to the Union and the Railway Administration making a claim in respect of the amounts which according to them was the loss caused to them. In civil revision application 475/66, out of the total claim made by the plaintiffs the Railway Administration paid a sum of Rs. 1033-23nP., in civil revision application 835/66 the Railway Administration paid a sum of Rs. 612-97 nP, and in civil revision application 12866/66, the Railway Administration paid a sum of Rs. 1083. The plaintiff in each of these cases sued for the balance which acco...
P. Joseph Varghese and anr. Vs. H.J. Chinoy and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom426; (1968)70BOMLR238; 1968CriLJ1610
Chitale, J.1. This is a petition by Dr. P. Joseph Varghese and Air India, a Corporation incorporated under the Air Corporation Act, praying that the verdict of the Coroner of Bombay regarding the death of Vasudev Dattatraya Kamat be quashed either wholly or in part.2. Dr. Varghese is a fully qualified medical practitioner in the employment of Air India as the Chief Medical Officer. He has held that post for several years. There are other doctors working under Dr. Varghese. The deceased Vasudev Dattatraya Kamat was employed by Air India as a Ground Engineer. He was treated at the Air India Clinic by Dr. Varghese, as well as by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr. Narula on several occasions prior to 2nd April 1966, when he, i.e., the said Vasudev Dattatraya Kamat died in unfortunate circumstances which are as follows.3. On 2nd April 1966 the said Kamat approached Dr. Varghese. Mr. Kamat disclosed symptoms of influenza and on clinical examination Dr. Varghese found that he (Kamat) had al...
Transport Manager, Poona Municipal Transport and Undertaking Vs. Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR869
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is a revisional application on behalf of the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated October 11, 1963, passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Poona, in Civil Suit No. 2752 of 1962 in favour of the opponent-plaintiff.2. Defendant No. 1 is the Poona Municipal Corporation, Defendant No. 2 is Poona Municipal Transport which is not a legal entity and merely one of the activities of defendant No. 1. The suit arose out of collision between the motor vehicles belonging to the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other. The plaintiff's case was that the collision was the result of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle of the defendants and the plaintiff had by such negligence suffered damages claimed in the suit, The collision occurred on September 14, 1960. The defendants inter alia contended that by reason of the provisions in Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the suit was tim...
Eric George Day Vs. Constance Muriel Day
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1967
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR127
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a petition filed by a husband under the Indian Divorce Act for a declaration of nullity of his marriage with the respondent, for a declaration that the respondent be presumed to be dead in law not having been heard or for more than eight years, as well as for a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment are that the petitioner is an Indian Christian and was married to the respondent at Nagpur on February 28, 1946 at a Protestant Church. It may be stated that the petitioner himself as well as both his parents are Catholics, but the respondent was a Protestant. After the marriage, from July 1956 till about May 1958, the parties resided together in Bombay. In May 1958, the petitioner was transferred to the Madras branch of the firm in which he was serving, but as there was no proper accommodation available at Madras, the respondent remained behind in Bombay. The petitioner's case is that in November ...
Vasudeo Ganu Vartak Vs. Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom259; (1967)69BOMLR776; 1968MhLJ79
Chandrachud, J.(1) The petitioner filed his nomination paper for election to the Thana Zilla Parishad from the Palghat electoral division of the Edwan Constituency. The 2nd respondent, a rival candidate, objected to the petitioner's nomination on the ground that the schools of which the petitioner was a Head Master was in receipt of Grant-in-Aid from the State Government, and therefore, the petitioner was holding an office of profit under or in the gift of Government. The Returning Officer upheld the objection by his order dated the 6th of May 1967 and rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner. (2) The petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer on the 8th of May 1967 and that appeal was presented by him to Mr. D. B. Deshpande, Assistant Judge, Thana, who for the time being, was holding charge of the District Court Mr. N. D. Kamat, the Registrar of the High Court, had been posted as the District Judge of Thana, but he took charge of that post on the 1...
Hassan Abdul Vs. Mrs. Nandgauri Bhogilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR865; 1968MhLJ158
Patel, J.1. This is a revisional application from the Small Causes Court at Bombay under the following circumstances. The respondents are the owners of a property known as 'Balkrishna Niwas' 2nd Road, Khar, Bombay. They filed an application in ejectment under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, against (1) Sukunraj Sagarmal Jhaveri, (2) Gajraj Sagarmal Jhaveri, (3) S.S. Mule and (4) M.A. Moidu, contending that Sukunraj Sagarmal Jhaveri and Gajraj Sagarmal Jhaveri were their licensees and that the licence was terminated. As to S.S. Mule and M.A. Moidu, it was alleged that as they were in possession under the licensee, they were joined as parties to the proceeding. It appears that the original defendants Nos. 1 to 4 did not file any defences whatsoever to this proceeding. In June of 1961, the petitioner filed an application before the Court in that proceeding, contending that he was in possession of the premises and M.A. Moidu was only his servant, that he was vitally in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›