Mumbai Court August 1968 Judgments
The Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Dalichand Jugraj Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1968
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR418
S.M. Sikri, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is directed against its judgment allowing the writ petition filed by the firm M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain, respondent No. 1 before us-hereinafter referred to as the petitioners-under Article 226 of the Constitution, and setting aside the order of the Assistant Registrar (D), Co-operative Societies, Bombay, referring the dispute between the petitioners and the Decean Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., appellants before us hereinafter referred to as the Bank.2. We may mention that in the petition filed before the High Court by the petitioners there were four respondents ; respondent No. 1 was the Assistant Registrar (D), Co-operative Societies, Bombay; respondent No. 2 was the Registrar's nominee; respondent No. 8 was the Bank and respondent No. 4 was Waman Wasudeo Wagh hereinafter referred to as the original owner. Before us the Bank is the appellant, while the petitioners and the three other res...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Vinayak Athavale Vs. Bhau Babbana Mhaisaie
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR284; 1969MhLJ456
Patel, J.1. This revisional application arises under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The petitioners are creditors and the opponents are debtors, In several applications that were heard by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being Nos. 3046, 3083, 2188, 4915, 1264 and 576 of 1049 the debts of the opponents were settled under the scheme of the Act and an order with regard to certain transaction was made in favour of the petitioners' father, the creditor. This award was passed on July 6, 1953. Though the creditor paid the Court-fees, the award was sent for registration by the learned Judge concerned much later i.e. on August 22, 1961, and it was registered on August 28, 1961. As the opponents did not pay the amount as per the instalments ordered, the petitioners filed an application to the Court, being Application No. 52 of 1961 for an order for recovery of the amount due through the Collector, The learned trial Judge held that as the award was of 1953 and the application for r...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Temple, Kothure, Through Its Trustees Vs. Laxman Mahadu C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom23; (1969)71BOMLR197; ILR1970Bom1289; 1969MhLJ476
Tarkunde, J.1. These four petitions have given rise to common questions relating to the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the constitutional validity of the said proviso and of Sections 32 to 32R of the said Act in so far as these provisions affect agricultural lands belonging to religious denominations. In order to appreciate the questions raised and the arguments advanced on either side, it would be enough to notice the facts involved in one of these petitions.2. In Special Civil Application No. 1129 of 1964 the petitioners are the trustees of a public trust whose object is to maintain a Hindu temple and to continue the worship of the deity installed therein. The trust was created as early as in 1845. The trust owned an agricultural land in a village in the Nasik District. The first respondent was the tenant of the land from before 1957. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Belapur Co. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom231; 1970MhLJ330
ORDER1. The plaintiffs to the suit and the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to only as 'the plaintiffs') are a company registered under the Companies Act are carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar and allied products at their factory at Harigaton in Ahmednagar District since the last about 45 years. Prior to the coming into force of the Maharashtra agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961) on the 26th of January 1962, the plaintiffs owned a large area of agricultural lands which were contiguous to the Plaintiffs' factory and within a convenient distance from the same. The plaintiffs used to cultivate sugarcane on the said lands which was used and consumed entirely by the plaintiffs' sugar factory. In fact, it was with a view to ensure an adequate and continuous supply of raw materials of good quality, without being subject to fluctuations in the prices of sugarcane that the plaintiffs were...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jabbar Taj Vs. R.K. Karanjia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom48; (1969)71BOMLR420; 1970CriLJ183; ILR1969Bom145; 1969MhLJ58
Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner is requesting this Court to take action against the respondent under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The present litigation is an off-shoot of a prior litigation. The facts of that case are not relevant for deciding the present petition, but the background against which the present petition comes to be filed may be noted in brief.2. The subject-matter of the present petition is an article written by the respondent R.K. Karanjia in his Weekly named 'Blitz' in the issue, dated April 20, 1968. The complainant had filed a complaint against the respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. On the last page 01 the cover page of the issue of Blitz, dated 5th of March 1966, a picture of one Pamela Tiffin appeared which was being styled as obscene by the complainant in his complaint. The respondent defended himself but the case ended in conviction on 28th September 1967. The respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Sheshrao Vs. Deviprasad Mahadeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1968
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR333; 1969MhLJ577
Chandurkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the heirs of the original defendant against a decree for dissolution of partnership and for accounts in favour of the original plaintiff Mahadeo, who is now represented by his heirs the respondents. Sheshrao, the original defendant, who shall hereafter be referred to as the defendant, and Mahadeo, the original plaintiff, who will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, entered into an agreement on December 5, 1949, which is styled as an agreement of partnership for running a cloth shop at Yeotmal in a building owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant had their own cloth business. The plaintiff was dealing in handloom cloth for which no licence who necessary, while the defendant was dealing in mill made cloth for which business a licence was required under the Cotton Cloth Trade Regulation Order, 1948, which was issued by the then Government of Central Provinces and Berar in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Esse...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay GraIn Dealers Association and ors. Vs. Lakshmichand Vasanji and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom342; (1969)71BOMLR179
Patel, J.1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Deshpande. The plaintiffs respondents is a partnership firm. The trial Court had returned the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to this Court which was heard by Mr. Justice Deshpande. He allowed the appeal and held that the Court had jurisdiction in the matter. Against this judgment the defendants filed the present appeal.2. The question is one of construction of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and in order to find whether the trial Court had jurisdiction or not in the matter the nature of the plaintiff's suit will have to be considered. The plaint consists of 12 paragraphs and the final paragraph contains the reliefs. Shortly stated the plaintiffs alleged that it is a monthly tenant of room No. 10 on the first floor and the entire terrace on the second floor of the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Madhukar Nara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR713; (1969)IILLJ619Bom; 1969MhLJ171
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of both the petitions. 2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application NO. 1106 is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, while the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1169 of 1966 is Madhukar Narayanrao Lanjewar, who was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner-Corporation will hereafter be referred to as the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. 3. Prior to the first reorganization of States in 1956, there was in operation in Vidarbha a Government undertaking called the Provincial Transport Services under Government ownership. As a result of the reorganization of States, the Provincial Transport Services operating in the Vidarbha region which became a part, firstly of the new State of Bombay, and then of the State of Maharashtra, continued to be operation by the same organization. Corresponding to these services there were in operation transport service...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Takhatmal JaIn and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom225; (1968)70BOMLR757; 1970CriLJ799; ILR1969Bom1172; 1969MhLJ199
ORDER1. The petitioners, who are the accused in Criminal Case No. 429/P of 1968 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, have filed this application in revision praying for setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on June 14, 1968, in the said case, rejecting an application of the petitioners requesting the Court to dismiss the case on the ground that the police had no power to file a charge-sheet in respect of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 1962 for which the accused are being tried.2. The few facts which are relevant to this application are as under :The two petitioners Kantilal Jain (accused No. 1) and Dinesh Desai (accused No. 2) claim to be traders. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be a broker in jewellery and petitioner No. 2 professes to carry on printing business. On the basis of some information received by the Officers of the C. B. I. Economic Offences Wing, they raided certain premises situa...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Vs. Appellate Authority Under Maharashtra Medical Practitioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom10; (1969)71BOMLR71; ILR1968Bom1445; 1969MhLJ318
Tarkunde, J.1. These two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 18(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners' Act, 1961.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2066 of 1966 comes from Sind which now forms part of West Pakistan. He claims that his grand-father and his father were well known physicians practising Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, After the partition of the country, the family migrated to Hurni camp at Baroda. The petitioner says that he started an independent dispensary at Baroda for practice in Unani and Ayurvedic Systems of Medicine and that he was practising in Baroda from 1950 to 1954. In 1954 he shifted to Ulhasnagar near Bombay, where he has been practising since then. After the passing of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners' Act, 1961, he applied to the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine set up by the Act for inclusion of his name in the list maint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›