Mumbai Court June 1968 Judgments
Ganu Santu Mhakavekar Vs. Shankar Tukaram Chougule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR165; 1969MhLJ379
Nain, J.1. This is a second appeal by the original defendant No. 6 in the suit. In order to appreciate the contentions of defendant No. 6 it will be necessary to set out briefly the history of previous litigation pertaining to survey No. 32 in Mharul, taluka Kavir in District Kolhapur.2. Some time after the year 1900 there was litigation between one Rajopadhye and one Deshpande with regard to this land. Deshpande was helped in this litigation by two persons Govinda Chougule and Santu Mhakavekar. By an agreement made some time in 1909, Deshpande in lieu of the services of Chougule and Mhakavekar agreed to give them southern half share in survey No. 32. The entire survey No. 32 measured 4 acres 14 Qunthas. The half share agreed to be given to Chougule and Mhakavekar measured 2 acres 15 Gunthas and was sub-divided and marked survey No. 32/2. It appears that possession of survey No. 32/2 was also given to these two persons.3. In 1923 Deshpande appears to have filed against both Govinda Cho...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jwalaprased Dube
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom360; (1968)70BOMLR693; 1969CriLJ1350; ILR1968Bom1302
ORDER1. The accused Jwalaprased Dube was tried under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been convicted on his own plea of guilty. The public analyst's report on the milk sold by the accused shows that it contained 28.8% water and the public analyst has certified that the sample which he examined contained extraneous water clearly implying thereby that it was added by the accused.2. The Magistrate has sentenced by accused to pay a fine of Rs, 75 or in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The requirements of the law are clear. The normal minimum penalty for selling any adulterated article of goods is imprisonment for not less that six months and fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. This is the minimum sentence which must be imposed according to the law.3. There is no doubt a proviso which says that for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, the Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Venkat Rao Vs. K.R. Mahale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom370; (1969)71BOMLR35; ILR1968Bom1397; 1969MhLJ328
1. This is an appeal against an order dated 19th /august 1965 passed by a judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, holding that the value of the subject-matter of the suit was over Rupees 25,000 and the Court therefore, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and ordering that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.2. The plaintiff claims to be a licensee of a restaurant knows as Meenakshi Bhuvan and lately known as Central Cafe Udipi, situated in Vishwas Bhuvan, King Edward Road, Parel, Bombay. She appears to have granted a sub-licence in respect of this restaurant to the defendant No. 1 who was running it with the assistance of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff claims to have terminated the licence of the defendant No. 1 on the ground that he had committed breach of the terms of the sub-licence. She, therefore, filed the present suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 only for recovery of possession of the said restaurant and a sum of Rs. 3,500 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathmal Gopikisan Vs. N.D. Rahate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR114; 1968MhLJ866
Abhyankar, J.1. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the two petitioners seek quashing of the order of the Returning Officer, Lakhandur Electoral Division, rejecting their nomination papers and also desire setting aside of the election of respondent No. 7 Girija Kumar Saksena as Chairman of the Lakhandur Panchayat Samiti.2. Respondent No. 1, N.D. Rahate, Additional Tahsildar, Sakoli, was appointed as Returning Officer at the election of members of the Panchayat Samiti in the Lakhandur Block 'which was divided into three electoral divisions, namely, Lakhandur, Choras Sarandi, and Kilaki Palandur. The petitioners filed their nomination papers according to rules within the time fixed in the election programme. Bach petitioner has filed a copy of his nomination paper. The copies of the nomination papers would show that each of the petitioners had given the serial number of the roll and also the name of the Gram Panchayat in which their names were recorded. Alon...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sheorao Dhangar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR328
Chandurkar, J.1. The applicant was convicted under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Darwha, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. This conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal, and the applicant has now come to this Court challenging his conviction.2. The applicant along with three other accused, who had admitted the guilt, were alleged to be found gaming in a public place on January 22, 1967. The place where they were found was under a tree in an open place and it is alleged that the place was raided by a Police Head Constable P.W. 3. Shankarrao along with two panchas P.W. 1 Irsharullah Khan and P.W. 2 Miyankhan. According to the prosecution, some other persons were also gaming, but they ran away and only the present applicant and three other persons were found. It is alleged that in front of the accused Rs. 10 were found and Us. 11 were seized ...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Dattatraya Mali and anr. Vs. Chintaman Govindpatil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom210; (1968)70BOMLR689; ILR1969Bom66; 1969MhLJ35
Tarkund,1. These three petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution raise a common question of law relating to the interpretation of the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. To appreciate the question involved it would be sufficient to notice the acts in Special Civil Application No. 1676 of 1964. One Dattatraya was the owner of several agricultural lands in a village in the Jalgaon District. It appears that Dattatraya also owned several houses and had a money-lending business. He died in 1962 leaving behind a widow Laxmibai & two sons Anant and Balwant. After the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act) was extensively amended by Bombay Act No. 13 of 1956 with effect from 1st August 1956, a partition was effected between the widow Laxmibai and the two sons Anant and Balwant by a registered document dated 20th November 1956. By that partition several ...
Tag this Judgment!The Pigment Lakes and Chemical Manufacturing Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Sita ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR452; 1969MhLJ710
Chitale, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Thana, reversing the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The defendant, Pigment Lakes and Chemical ., has a factory at Bhandup, taluka Kalyan, district Thana. The plaintiff, Sitaram Kashiram Konde, was employed by the defendant as a chemist, and he served the defendant for about fourteen years. The plaintiff alleges that he was an active Union worker and claims to have helped the defendant in settling industrial disputes in the past. By its letter dated February 28, 1959, the defendant informed the plaintiff that due to unavoidable reasons the factory would remain closed for an indefinite period from March 31, 195'9, and the plaintiff's services were not required after that date. The plaintiff points out that the said letter did not mention specially the reason for closure and consequent retrenchment...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Sharadkumar Virchand Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom348; (1968)70BOMLR710; ILR1969Bom1015; 1968MhLJ893
1. These two proceedings arise out of the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satana, on deputation at Malegaon in Cri, Case No. 5245 of 1965.2. The facts giving rise to these cases are few and simple and are not in dispute. The property bearing House No. 48 at Malegaon belongs to accused No. 1 Sharadkumar Virchand Shah. Accused No. 2 happens to be his brother. One shop situated on the ground floor of that building was in occupation of complainant Hukmichand Dipchand Jain as a tenant of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 instituted a suit for his eviction in the Court at Malegaon, the relief of possession being claimed on two grounds was that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by him for his own occupation, and the second ground was that the property of which the premises formed a part was in need of repairs, which could be carried out after the shop was vacated by the tenant. These grounds were not accepted by the trial Court and the landlord's suit for e...
Tag this Judgment!The Chemist a Firm Vs. Ishwarlal Karsondas Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom282; (1969)71BOMLR31; ILR1969Bom125; 1969MhLJ314
ORDER1. This is a revision application by the original defendants in R. A. E. Suit No. 6184 of 1964 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The plaintiffs filed a suit against them for ejectment in respect of the suit premises. On 10th October 1955 a decree in ejectment was passed against them, directing them to vacate the premises and to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiffs on or before 10th October 1959. However, before this date, the defendants filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being suit No. 3100 of 1959 for a declaration that they were the tenants of the plaintiffs in this suit and for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs in this suit from executing the ejectment decree passed by the small Cause Court. On 22nd October 1959 the defendants were granted ex parte injection on a notice of motion came up for hearing on 17th November 1959, when the following order was passed thereon:- 'On the defendants undertaking not to execute the decree dated 10th October 1955...
Tag this Judgment!Khushalchand Bhaiyalal JaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom70; (1968)70BOMLR792; 1969CriLJ298; ILR1969Bom120; 1968MhLJ685
ORDER1. The short question in this revision application is whether the conviction 7(1)(a)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act for his failure to maintain a register of retailers in Form D as required as required by Clause 7(A) of the licence given under the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1963, is proper. The applicant is a dealer who admittedly holds a licence issued under the Maharashtra Food grains Dealers Licensing Order 1963. Clause 3 of the Order provides that no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licence authority. Clause 4 of this Order provides for a form in which a licence requires that a licensee, if he is a wholesaler, Shall sell such foodgrains only to retailers (including himself if he also sells in retail) who are registered with him and in according Authority or any officer authorised from time to time. This condition also requires that the regis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »