Mumbai Court July 1968 Judgments
Govindsingh Amarsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR333; 1969MhLJ144
Chandurkar, J.1. These two revision applications arise out of two prosecutions started against the applicant for a breach of the provisions of Section 16(1)(a) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. The applicant is the owner of a goods vehicle BYY 546 and the prosecution case is that according to the provisions of the Act the quarterly rate of tax of the vehicle payable by the accused was Rs. 352.50. The complaint which is lodged by the Regional Transport Officer and Taxation Authority, Nagpur, states that the tax of the vehicle was payable by the registered owner by January 28, 1966, but the same was not paid and the owner did not send any intimation of non-use of the said vehicle as required by Rule 5(1) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959. Thus as the owner of the vehicle had not paid the tax Rs. 352.50 for the period January 1, 1966 to March 31, 1966, according to the complainant, he had committed an offence under Section 3 read with Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Shariff Suleman Nadaf and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom383; 1969CriLJ1351; ILR1969Bom927
ORDER1. This is a revision application filed by 78 out of 108 accused, who are committed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Sholapur, in Criminal Case No. 1293 of 1967, to be tried before the Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 295, 323, 325, 332, 302, 120-B, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with the respect to a riot in Sholapur City on September 17, 1967. The petitioners have prayed that the order of committal in so far as they are concerned is contrary to law, because there was no evidence before the learned Judicial Magistrate against them and the learned Magistrate failed to apply his mind to the materials before him and wrongly committed the petitioners to be tried by the Sessions Court.2. The relevant facts that led to the prosecution of the said 108 persons in connection with the aforesaid riot may be briefly stated as follows:-On 'Anant Chaturdashi day', which happened to fall on September 17, 1967, the Hindus in Shola...
Tag this Judgment!Leela Dhundiraj Divekar Vs. E.C. Shinde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom109; (1969)71BOMLR305; 1969MhLJ487
1. This is a suit filed by one of the executants of a document under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for a decree directing the Defendants, who are the appropriate registering authorities, to register the document in question within 30 days from the date of the passing of the decree in this suit.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of this suit are that the plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of one Dhundiraj Balwant Divekar who died intestate in Bombay on the 10th of October 1962, leaving him surviving as his only heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his widow the Plaintiff herself and two sons, one named Suresh, and the other a minor named Bakul. The Plaintiff obtained a grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Dhundiraj from this Court on 21st May 1964, and having completed the administration of the said estate, paid to the said Suresh a sum of Rs. 52,106, and paid to herself in her personal capacity as the heir...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Haidar Mujawar Vs. Jamal Haidar Mujawar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom328; (1969)71BOMLR38
Patel, J.1. First Appeal No. 56 of 1967 arises out of an order made by the learned District Judge at Kolhapur setting aside the order made by the Joint Charity Commissioner in a revisional application. The genesis of this dispute may be very shortly stated. In Kolhapur city there is a Darga of one Hajrat Pir Babu Jamal. There are two families interested in this Darga, one is the family of Mutawallis and the other of Mujawars. The appellant and respondent No. 1 are the sons of one Haidar Babaji, who died in 1926. He was the Mujawar and had eight annas share in the emoluments. He made a will by which he directed his sons i.e the appellant and respondent No. 1 to do the management of their shares by turns in certain manner. Respondent No. 1 is the elder son and the appellant is the younger son of the said Haidar. After the death of Haidar, the management was done in accordance with the terms of the Will. In fact, the appellant managed the entire property of the Darga and sent respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Diploma in Medical Practice Association Vs. the Medical Council of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR587; 1969MhLJ621
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks, by appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing of the resolution of respondent No. 1, the Medical Council of India, conveyed in letter dated November 15, 1966, and as a consequence it is prayed that respondent No. 1 Council may be directed to give effect to their resolutions dated November 8, 1959 and April 5/6, 1963, which are filed as annexures A and E, with the petition. The substance of the relief asked for is that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, who are medical students, should be declared eligible to seek admission to the condensed M.B., B.S. course at the Medical College, Nagpur, or elsewhere on their passing the condensed L.M.P. course.2. Certain facts giving the background of this petition are necessary to understand the nature of the relief and the circumstances in which it is being asked for. In the former State of Madhya Pradesh of which Vidarbha was a part, a course of medical education was co...
Tag this Judgment!Gotiram Nathu Mendre Vs. Sonabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom73; (1969)71BOMLR157; ILR1969Bom402
1. This is a second appeal by the original plaintiff. Full facts leading to this appeal are set out in the judgment dated 21st December 1966 of Mr. Justice M. V. Paranjpe who framed certain issues and referred the same for trial partly to the lower appellate Court and partly to the trial court, as will appear a little later. But for the purpose of the contentions taken before me I may perhaps set out a few of the facts which may be relevant for the purpose of those contentions.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit from which the present appeal arises against four defendants in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar at Sangamner for possession of a house mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. It was alleged that the house originally belonged to one Bhika Hari. Bhika Hari married six wives but had no son. On 7th December 1934 he made a will bequeathing this house to his daughter's son Shivnath. The will provided that his last wife Sakhubai should take the income dur...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalrao Madhaorao Vs. the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer for Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR262; 1969MhLJ272
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of both these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner Vithalrao in Special Civil Application No. 504 of 19G7 claims to be cultivating Khasra Nos. 51, 58, 60, 48, 03, 46 and 64, situate at village Binakhi in Patwari 'Circle No. 10 in Tahsil and District Nagpur under a registered lease deed dated July 9, 1047, from one Mohomed Hassan Nurani Malak. The petitioner also claims that he is recorded as a tenant in the record of rights and the tenants' list prepared under Section 8 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, applicable to this region.3. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 506 of 1967 claim to be owners of Khasra No. 62 held in Bhumidhari rights at the same village-Binakhi.4. By not ice dated May 3, 1062, respondent No. 2, that is, the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur published under Section 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, notified that a Housing Scheme known as t...
Tag this Judgment!Farbewerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius and Bruni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom255; (1974)76BOMLR130
1. This is a suit for infringement of patent under Section 29 of the Indian patents and Designs Act, 1911, filed by the plaintiffs who are the legal owners and proprietors of Indian Patent No. 58716 in respect of the manufacture of new sulphonyl-ureas, salts of those compounds and of anti-diabetic preparation containing such compounds. The application for the said patent was made by the plaintiffs on 23rd October 1956 and was accepted on 7th November 1957, but the same took effect from the 8th of May 1956 by reason of the provisions of Section 78A of the Patents and Designs Act. One of the chemical compounds comprised in the said patent is Tolbutamide, and since 1957 the plaintiffs have been marketing the same as an anti-diabetic drug in India and all over the world under the trade mark 'Rastinon'. The suit was originally filed only against the present first defendants who, according to the Plaintiffs, have since May 1961 wrongfully and with full knowledge of the plaintiffs' said paten...
Tag this Judgment!B.A. Sawant Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom353; (1968)70BOMLR794; 1969CriLJ1344; ILR1968Bom1305
1. This is an appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay under S. 16(1)(a)(I) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 read with Section 7(I) of the said Act and Rule 5-A 11-01-02 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.2. The prosecution was started on a complaint filed by the Medical Officer of Health L and M Wards Kurla of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Bombay, on July 13, 1966 in the Court of the learned Presidency Magistrate. 11th Court, Kurla Bombay with the previous written consent of the Deputy Executive Health Officer who is the Officer authorised by the Bombay Municipal Corporation under Section 26(1) of the said Act for consenting to the prosecution under the Act. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused who is the Proprietor of a milk shop viz. Asha Dairy Farm situate at Abu Bakar's Compound. 77. Old Agra Road, Kurla Bombay sold buffalo's unboi...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Ananda Patil Vs. Appa Bhima Redekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom205; (1968)70BOMLR773; ILR1969Bom252; 1969MhLJ43
Deshpande, J.1. The short question that falls for determination in this case is as to whether, a son by the first husband of a female Hindu is entitled to succeed to the property on her death inherited by her from her second husband under S.15 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.2. Facts in this case are not in dispute. One Durgappa Banoji Redekar was the owner of survey Nos. 48/1, 48/7, and 125/4 situate in village Manwad in Kolhapur district. Durgappa died leaving behind him no issues, male of female, but his widow Yamunabai. Yamunabai succeeded to the property on the death of Durgappa and enjoyed the property till her death on 6-8-1961. Yamunabai was thus alive on 17th June 1956, when the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, when the Hindu Succession Act of 19567 (herein after referred to as ' the Act' ) came into force, and was in possession of the said property, and she thus became absolute owner of the same in view of S. 14 of the Act. Yamunabai left behind her the petitioner Rama, who ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »