Mumbai Court October 1968 Judgments
Dattatraya Vs. Shaikh Mahaboob Shaikh Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1968
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR431
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, on behalf of the plaintiff against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated October 11/14, 1968 in Appeal No. 30 of 1962 from the appellate order of the District Court, Osmanabad whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of the lower Courts and declared that the appellant was not entitled to execute the decree for preemption and that the respondents were entitled to be put in possession of the properties of which they were dispossessed in the enforcement of the pre-emption decree.2. The appellant had obtained a decree for possession of certain lands in a preemption suit he had brought against the respondents. The decree was made in March, 1945 and the appellant was directed to pay the consideration of Rs. 5,000 within six months from the date of the decree on which the appellant was to be put in possession of the suit lands. In case of default in depositing the sum within the time the plaintiff's suit was to be deemed to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Mehta Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1968
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR787
J.C. Shah, J.1. The Assistant Collector of Customs filed a complaint against Ramesh Chandra Mehta and four others in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, charging them with offences under Section 120, Indian Penal Code read with Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, Section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, and for specific offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. It was the case of the complainant that when Mehta was searched on December 13, 1962, at the Dum Dura Airport, Calcutta, diamonds and jewellery worth Rs. 1,91,000 were found on his person and currency notes of Rs. 27,000 were found in a suit-case with him and that pursuant to a statement made by Mehta diamonds, pearls and jewellery of the value of, Rs. 2,61,800 and correspondence, telegrams and cables bearing upon the conspiracy to smuggle gold, precious stones etc. into India from foreign countries were recovered from different places'.2. The complainant tendered in evi...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Moreshwar Kulkarni Chinchwadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom8; (1969)71BOMLR367; ILR1969Bom955
Nain, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 14th March 1961 of the learned Assistant Judge, Kolhapur, allowing the defendants' appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit from which this appeal arises in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,319-8-6, interest and costs on the following facts: Messrs. Dhavate and Rote had filled in a tender for supplies with the Director of Civil Supplies, Kolhapur State. The tender was accepted by two letters dated 9th November 1944 and 8th January 1945. Under the terms of the contract, 10% of the amount payable to Messrs. Dhavate and Rote was to be deducted and paid to them on completion of the contract. The contract was completed in the year 1946. Kolhapur State thereafter merged in the then State of Bombay and was later succeeded by the State of Maharashtra. By a letter dated 27th May 1949 the Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavsingh Dwarkadas Vs. Indian Engineering Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom227; (1969)71BOMLR312; 1969MhLJ458
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for the determination of the existence and/or validity of the Arbitration Agreement and/or the effect of the purported Reference to Arbitration between the parties, and for a declaration that there is no valid or proper agreement to refer and the decision of the purported appointment of the Umpires is inoperative, ineffective and void and the Umpire has no right to decide or proceed to decide the disputes between the parties arose out of certain selling agency agreements in respect of aluminum and copper wires manufactured by the petitioner. Disputes arose between the parties and claims for damages were made which disputes and claims were, under an Arbitration Agreement dated 26th April 1967 (a copy of which is annexed to the petition and marked 'A'), referred to the Arbitration of two learned Counsel of this Court, Mr. H. G. Advani and Mr. J. M. Gandhi, with summary powers. Clause 2 of that Arbitration Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Tarabai Vishwanath Sabins Vs. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom447; (1969)71BOMLR156; 1969MhLJ512
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original Opponent No.1 in the chamber summons dated May 31, 1967 whereby the 1st respondents-original plaintiffs sought directions for delivery of physical Khas possession of a certain portion of land bearing new S. No. 217 of village Kurar by removal, inter alia, of the appellant and two other Opponents viz., Gajrabai Lalu and Rama Lalu. The substance of the case of the plaintiffs was that decree for delivery of possession of the whole of the land bearing new S. No. 217 was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. For execution of that decree for possession, along with the plaintiffs' representatives, the Sheriff was to proceed on May 8, 1967. On may 7, 1967, the defendant in the suit removed the entire wire fencing round-about the land. Three hutments on the land were within the above wire fencing enclosing S.No. 217. As the barbed wire fencing was removed by the defendant and as the marks thereof had been obliterated, on May 8, 1967, wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. L.R. Melwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR782
K.S. Hegde J.1. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 238 of 1966 wherein the following questions of law arise for decision :(i) Whether the prosecution from which these Criminal Revision Petitions arose is barred under Article 20(2) of the Constitution as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in that case by reason of the decision of the Collector of Customs in the proceedings under the Sea Customs Act ?(ii) Whether under any circumstance the finding of the Collector of Customs that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not proved to be guilty operated as an issue estoppel in the criminal case against those accused ?(iii) Whether the present prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court in view of inordinate delay in launching the same and consequently whether it is liable to be quashed ?(iv) Whether Section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to the facts of this case and(v) Whether the documents menti...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshminarayanan Vs. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom224; (1969)71BOMLR302; ILR1969Bom446; 1970MhLJ144
Patel, J.1. The petitioner in both these petitions alleges that he is a partner of a dissolved firm named Bangalore Stores in Salem District. The firm was manufacturing and exporting handloom fabrics and its then partners were the petitioner, K. Damodaran, K. Govindarajan and O. V. Krishnaswami Chettiar. The said firm obtained licenses for import of silk yarn for the purposes of its business from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports with certain terms attached to the licences. Later investigation apparently showed that the said partnership had committed breaches of the terms of license, particularly the term that the said goods after import shall be used for its own manufacture. After this was discovered, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed two complaints in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay on July 5, 1968 alleging that the said firm and its partners had committed breaches of the terms of the licenses issued to them. The firm...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Vishnu Nagarkar and anr. Vs. Maruti Baloba Vyavahare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom93; (1969)71BOMLR519; ILR1971Bom140; 1969MhLJ740
Patel, J. 1. These two applications are directed against the orders of the Election Court setting aside the elections of the respective petitioners. In Special Civil Application No. 1911 of 1968 the two petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and two others were candidates for the general constituency in Ward No. 2 of the village Karkamb in Pandharpur Taluka. The election programme published by the Tahsildar was as follows:--1.The date of publication of voters' list...November 25, 1967.2.The date of filing of nominations...December 12, 1967.3.The date of scrutiny of nominations...December 13, 1967.4.The date of withdrawal of the same...December 21, 1967.5.The date of publishing the list of candidates...December 23, 1967.6.The date of recording of votes...December 29, 1967.7.The date of counting of votes and declaration of the results...December 30, 1967.On December 21, 1967, two of the candidates filed an application for withdrawal from the election. The returning officer published on...
Tag this Judgment!Antaji Ramchandra Jog Vs. Pandurang Yesu Kedpure and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom363; (1969)71BOMLR364; 1969MhLJ640
ORDER1. The short point that arises for consideration in these two Special Civil Applications is as to the true interpretation of Clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The petitioner is the landlord in both the applications while the respondents are tenants on two different lands. Before obtaining the certificate under S. 88-C of the Tenancy Act, the petitioner had also made applications for possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation against these tenants under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act. Finally he succeeded in getting an order for resumption of half the area of the lands. The same has been confirmed by this Court on 10-3-1964, though the order has not been executed till this day. While these proceedings under Section 31 read with Section 29 were pending, the petitioner obtained the certificate under Section 88-C and made two applications against the tenants on 1-3-1962 for possession for bona fide personal cul...
Tag this Judgment!Madhao Narayan Vs. Ragho Niloo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom132; (1969)71BOMLR537; ILR1970Bom458; 1969MhLJ344
1. The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution is Madhao Narayan Sarmukkadam, who is the tenure-holder of field survey No. 15/2, area 12 acres 1 guntha, situate at village Muchi, tahsil Ward, District Yeotmal. The landholder filed an application on 15-10-1963 for possession of survey No. 15/2 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 Ragho who was a tenant of this field had sublet it to respondent No, 2 Karnu. The petitioner gave a notice on 16-8-1962 charging Ragho that he was not cultivating the held though ho was his tenant and that he had sublet the field to another person. A second notice was also given on 18-4-1963 charging Ragho with the same default. This was followed by an application dated 15-3-1963 to which both Ragho and Karnu were impleaded as parties. This application is registered in the Court of the Naib Tahsildar as Revenue Case No. 2/59 (10-B) of 1963-64. In these proceedings, both Ragho and Karnu filed a joint statement and their joint defe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »