Mumbai Court July 1968 Judgments
Kisan Januji Vs. Anilkumar Manilal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom213; (1969)71BOMLR135; ILR1970Bom121; 1968MhLJ858
Abhyankar, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Extra Assistant Judge, Akola, as an Election Tribunal, setting aside the election of the petitioner as a member to the Municipal Council, Akot from Ward No. 15 held recently. 2. An election programme for electing members from different wards to the Municipal Council at Akot under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, was fixed by the authorities in 1967. The dates for acceptance of nomination papers was 10th May 1967, scrutiny was on 13th May 1967, date for withdrawal was 20th May 1967, poll was taken on 4th June 1967 and the votes were counted and the results declared on 5th June 1967 . The petitioner and the first respondent were the only contesting candidates from Ward No. 15. On a scrutiny and counting of ballot papers, it was found that each of them, that is, the petitioner and the first respondent, had secured 320 valid votes. Under Rule 58 of th...
Tag this Judgment!indumatiben Chimanlal Desai Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom423; (1969)71BOMLR340
1. This is an appeal against an order dated 8th March 1967 passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper court under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit from which the present appeal arises in the Bombay City Civil Court on the following allegations:The plaintiff is the widow of one Chimanlal Chhotalal Desai who died on or about 22nd January 1965. The defendant No.1 is the Union of India. The defendant No.2 is the Additional Collector of Bombay in charge of income-tax recoveries. The deceased Chimanlal Desai, the husband of the plaintiff, was assessed to income-tax amounting to Rs.8,82,427.65 p. In realization of the said amount of income-tax the defendant No.2 had attached a property bearing city Survey No.7/596 of Malbar and Cumbala Hill Divisions, situated at Bhulabhai Desai road, in the compound known as 'Oomer Park', Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Harnarayan Dhanrup Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Amr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom198; (1969)71BOMLR133; ILR1969Bom510; 1968MhLJ855
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a landlord's petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing a notice in Form VIII of Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Rules, 1962. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents who are the officers of the State.2. The petitioner is an agriculturist holding land admeasuring 124.08 acres. He submitted a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The return was scrutinised by the Sub-Divisional Officer and by his order dated 6-12-1965 the Sub-Divisional Officer held that an area of 56.08 acres as detailed in the order was surplus land with the petitioner. At the same time, a notification under sub-section (2) of Section 21 giving details of land which was declared surplus was also issued. It appears that thereafter nothing was done till the notice impugned in this petition was issued on 15-3-1967 by the respondent. No. 3, namely, Naib Tahsildar, Achalpu...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bherulal Dagadulal Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR694
Vaidya, J.1. The State has filed the above appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, on October 28, 1967, in two criminal cases before him, both of which related to an incident which took place at about 7-30 p.m. on October 7, 1966, in Manmad. The first information in one case was given by one Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed and the first information in the other case was given by one Parasmal Mesulal Jain relating to the said incident. As these two appeals relate to the same incident and involve a common question of law, they can be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1968 arises out of Criminal case No. 778 of 1966 before the said Magistrate. A chargesheet was filed before him on October 15, 1966, against the seven respondents in that appeal, viz., (1) Bherulal Dagdulal Jain, (2) Kantilal Dagdulal Bardiya, (3) Madanlal Panalal Bardiya, (4) Dharmachand Dagduram Bardiya, (5) Parasmal Bherulal Bardiya, (6) Balu Kon...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bherulal Dagadulal JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1038
Vaidya, J.1. The State has filed the above appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, on October 28, 1967, in two criminal cases before him, both of which related to an incident which took place at about 7-80 p. m. on October 7, 1966 in Manmad. The first information in one case was given by one Zumberlal Rajmal Chajed and the first information in the other case was given by one Parasmal Bhesulal Jain relating to the said incident. As these two appeals relate to the same incident and involve a common question of law, they can be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1968 arises out of Criminal Case No. 778 of 1966 before the said Magistrate. A charge-sheet was filed before him on October 15, 1966 against the 7 respondents in that appeal, viz., (1) Bherulal Dagdulal Jain, (2) Kantilal Dagdulal Bardiya, (3) Madanlal Panalal Bardiya, (4) Dharamchand Dagduram Bardiya, (5) Parasmal Bherulal Bardiya, (6) Balu Kondaj...
Tag this Judgment!Harbhajankaur and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom285; (1968)70BOMLR778; 1969CriLJ1038; ILR1968Bom1180; 1969MhLJ91
ORDER1. This criminal revision application is filed by the accused who are being tried in the case No.2470/ P of 1967 in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Bombay respect of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956). The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Branch C .I.D. Bombay filed a Charge-sheet on November 22, 1967 in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Bombay alleging that accused No.1, Harbhajankaur alias Harbhajankaur and accused No. 2, Rachana alias Kripla, who were both described in the charge-sheet as Hindu prostitutes, kept a brothel at flat No.4, first floor, Jambh Nagar, Juhu Raod, Santa Cruz and thereby committed an offence under Section k3 (1) o f the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 which will be hereafter referred to as ' S.I. T. Act. 'It was also alleged in the charge-sheet that the said accused between March 1967 and May...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›