Mumbai Court September 1968 Judgments
Premprakash Surajmal Vs. Maharashrra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom361; (1969)71BOMLR330; ILR1969Bom999; 1969MhLJ141
ORDER1. The petitioner is a minor and tenure-holder of survey No. 17/1 area 14 acres and 30 gunthas, land-revenue Rs. 38-50 of village Rasulpur, in taluq and District Amravati. Even in these proceedings, he is represented by his natural and legal guardian Surajmal who is his father. On 26-4-1960 an application was made on behalf of Shri Premprakash for restoration of the field from the opponent Maroti on the ground that he needed the land bona fide for his own cultivation. Prior to that a notice under Section 38 was given according to law. This field and some other field as detailed in a copy of the family partition deed of 1950 was owned by the petitioner.2. The opponents Maroti and shamrao resisted the application principally on the ground that Premprakash was not the owner of the family property but the joint family continued to be in possession and the owner was Surajmal, the father of the petitioner. This was really the sole basis of the defence in resisting the application. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Balu Shivling Dombe Vs. the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom351; (1969)71BOMLR79; 1969CriLJ1341; 1969MhLJ387
Tarkunde, J.1. This petition has been filed under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of an order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, by the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and confirmed in appeal by the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioner is a resident of Pandharpur where he owns a cycle shop and considerable immovable properties. He also owns agricultural lands in an adjoining village. He is a married man with wife and children.3. On or about 15th June 1967 the petitioner was served with a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pandharpur, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. It was alleged in the notice that because of the petitioner's illegal acts an atmosphere of danger and alarm had been created in Pandharpur city and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Pramodrai Shamaldas Bhavsar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom337; (1969)71BOMLR286; 1969MhLJ559
Patel, J.1. By this application the petitioner challenges an order of dismissal passed against him by the Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on December 11, 1965. The short facts leading to the present application need be stated.2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent the Life Insurance Corporation, which is a statutory corporate body created under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. On April 27, 1965 a charge-sheet was served upon him in respect of six items. Item no 1 was in connection with indiscipline and insubordination under Regulations 21 and 39 (1) of the Staff Regulations Charge No. 2 related to his calling a meeting of the Branch Of Office staff in the of Office premises after 5.30 p.m. without obtaining prior permission of the Branch Manager, Charge No. 3 related to his not accepting a letter dated November 9, 1964 addressed to him by the Branch Manager in relation to the meeting which was the subject-matter of Charge No. 2 Charge No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Mallasha Sayabanna Mangonda Vs. Khadir Ajam Aherwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR523; 1969MhLJ753
Patel, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by the Assistant Collector under Section 84(c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948) and confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal. The short facts leading to the present application are as follows: The land in suit belonged to one Dhondi Abaji who was cultivating- the land by himself right until his death. It appears that he had created a mortgage on the property and the mortgagee obtained a decree for recovery of the mortgage amount. Eventually, the property 'was put to auction and in execution proceedings the petitioner on November 4, 1950, purchased the: same. As respondent No. 1 claimed to be in possession of the property on his own account, the petitioner could not successfully obtain physical possession under Order XXI, Rule 95, 'Civil Procedure Code. As soon as the sale was confirmed and respondent No. 1 came to know that the property was s...
Tag this Judgment!Marketing and Advertising Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Telerad Private Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom323; (1969)2CompLJ91(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed this petition for winding up the applicant company, and the petition was accepted in the ordinary course and the usual direction for notice to the company was given. When the petition came up for admission on 24th April 1968 and for directions in regard to advertisement, the parties arrived at certain Consent Terms, a copy of which has been annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the present Summons and marked 'A'. Under the said Consent Terms, the company agreed to pay to the petitioners an aggregate sum of Rs. 1, 50, 000/- by certain instalments which were payable on the 30th day of each month. A Consent Order was passed by the Court Terms, an instalment of Rs. 25,000/- became payable on or before the 30th August 1968. The actual amount due to the petitioners was, under the said Consent Terms, left to be decided either by agreement, or by reference to the arbitration of counsel Mr. A. B. Diwan. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Consent Terms were in the f...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharilal Ramlal Gulati Vs. Santumal Gangumal Ahuja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR281; 1969MhLJ472
Patel, J.1. By this application the petitioner seeks to challenge the order made by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, in an election petition preventing him from inspecting the ballot papers in respect of votes acquired by respondent No. 1 at the local election. The short facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: Election to Shrirampur Municipal Ward No. 4 was held on June 3, 1967, under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act (XL of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). At this election 576 votes were cast. The counting was completed on June 4, 1967. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were the candidates from Ward No. 4. At this election, the petitioner was declared elected by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 1 made an application to the Returning Officer for recounting of the votes which the Returning Officer, by virtue of the powers vested in him, rejected as frivolous. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 made an application to the District Court at Ahmedna...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Mahadeo Dhamorikar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR433; (1969)IILLJ499Bom; 1969MhLJ103
1. For the purposes of decision of this appeal it is not necessary to set out the entire evidence led by the prosecution, but suffice it to say that the prosecution evidence was accepted by the learned Special Judge so far as the appellant was concerned, but the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no case against the labour officer. He, therefore, acquitted the labour officer. One of the important question which was raised before the learned Special Judge was that the sanction which was given by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, purporting to be under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, was invalid, and according to the accused, therefore, the prosecution itself was bad. 2. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 5 Ajab Chore, that Sri R. A. Sheikh, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, had accorded sanction for the prosecution of the accused. The learned Judge then referred to a compilation which appears to have been produced before him during...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas463(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is a petition under section 433(e) of the Companies Act for the winding up of a company named Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of its inability to pay its debts, both by virtue of noncompliance with a statutory notice given under the provisions of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, as well as on the ground of its being commercially insolvent. The petition was accepted by me on the 28th of June, 1968, and notice was directed to be given to the company in respect of the same. It has now come up before me for admission and for consequential orders by way of advertisement. 2. The Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') was incorporated on the 15th of July, 1959, mainly for the purpose of acquiring building sites and constructing buildings thereon and leasing or disposing of flats therein on ownership basis or otherwise. The company has already constructed a building named 'Advent' on a site at Backbay Reclamation which ha...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Hiranandani Vs. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom373; 1969LabIC1324
ORDER(1) This is a suit field by the plaintiff to recover damages for wrongful termination of service amounting to Rs. 92,019.54, together with interest from the date of suit, from his former employers, the defendants. It is really not necessary for me to refer to the facts of this case in detail for the simple reason that after issues were raised and some evidence recorded, Mr. Daji for the defendants very fairly made a statement that his clients did not desire to dispute the wrongful termination of the services of the plaintiff on which the present suit is based, but would confine the contest to the issues relating to damages, with the result that only Issues Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 survived in the present suit. A few facts may however, be mentioned at the very outset. The plaintiff retired on superannuation from his service with the Western Railway in which he was, at the time of his retirement on the 7th January 1962, holding the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer and was drawing ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjuli Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom1; (1969)71BOMLR560; ILR1970Bom353; 1969MhLJ435
Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants this Court to quash the order passed by the Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, as Election Tribunal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 33 of 1966, on 8-8 1966.2. This petition arises out of the elections to the village Panchayat of Sonegaon (Bai), Tahsil and District Wardha, Ward No. 2 of that village is a multi-member constituency with two seats in all. Out of them, one is a reserved seat for women and the other is a general seat. The election took place on 30-5-1966 and the votes were counted on 31-5-1966. In that Ward No. 2, there were only 5 candidates. Out of them, two were women, viz.. the present petitioner Manjulabai and one Anjanabai opponent No. 5. The other three candidates were men who are opponents 4, 6 and 7. The counting disclosed that Anjanabai got 104 votes, Mahadeo got 90 votes. Manjulabai got 30, Govinda pot 32 and Rambhau 1. The Return...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »