Mumbai Court January 1969 Judgments
Abdul Sabir Khan Ahmed Khan Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR823; 1969MhLJ532
Padhye, J.1. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 16 were employed as Octroi Moharirs in the services of the respondent Municipal Council, Bhahdara. Petitioner No. 17 was a confirmed peon but was doing the work of a Naka Moharir as a relieving Moharir. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were confirmed in the year 1967. 'With a view to get more income from the Octroi Department, the Government directed the various Municipal Councils to suitably revise the rates of the octroi duty within the maximum and minimum prescribed and also directed that the expenditure on recovery of the octroi duty should be maintained at the minimum so that the new rates of octroi will give the maximum increase in the income. It is also stated that the proposal to abolish the octroi tax was under the consideration of the Government and if by increasing- the octroi tax and reducing the expenditure the Municipal Councils showed more income, they would be more benefited by the reimbursement which the Government shall be making to them in r...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrao Anant Pai Vs. Narayanlal Bansilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR607; 1969MhLJ808
Patel, J.1. This matter was heard by us on October 18, 1968. It arises out of a decree made by the Small Cause Court at Bombay directing delivery of possession by the defendants to the plaintiffs for non-payment of rent under Section 12(5)(a) of the Bombay Kent Act. For the reasons given in our interlocutory judgment we held that, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, Section 12(5)(a) of the Bent Act was not attracted. As, however, there was a finding by the learned trial Judge and the appellate Court that even if Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act applied, the defendants had not complied with the terms of that section and were therefore not entitled to the protection of the said Act and as we did not consider the finding satisfactory, we remitted that issue to the trial Court to be certified by the appellate Court to us.2. After the remand the trial 'Court permitted the defendants to lead additional evidence on this issue if they so desired and the defendants examined defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Southarn Chemical Works Vs. Mohamed HuseIn FakruddIn Maniar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom128; (1970)72BOMLR156; ILR1970Bom645
Patel, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his suit for damages and it arises under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff-firm manufactures Diamond Apicin and Diamond Jantpudis at Miraj. The defendant is a trader at Sholapur. By an agreement dated January 2, 1959 between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was appointed as the selling agent of the plaintiff's medicines for the Districts of Sholapur and Gulbarge, and for the Talukas of Humnabad, Tuljapur Latur and Indi. The agreement was to be in force for a period of three years. By this agreement the defendant undertook to purchase and sell a minimum of 80,000 pudis of Diamond Apicin and 5000 of Diamond Jant-pudis, agreeing further that the defendant would not discontinue the agency for the period of three years and if he did so, he would have to pay damages to the plaintiff. In pursuance of this contract, the defendant ordered some goods but it appears that by about February 1959, the Civil Su...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Murtazakhan Hazi Aftab Ahmed Khan Vs. Muslim National Co-operati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR836; 1970MhLJ273
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioners in this revision application are the heirs of one Haji Aftab Ahmed Mahtabkhan. The said Haji Ahmed Mahtabkhan was a surety for a loan advanced by respondent No. 1 the Muslim National Co-operative Bank Limited, to one Shaikh Hasan Shaikh Rehman. Respondent No. 3 is the widow and heir of the said Shaikh Hasan Shaikh Rehman. Respondent No. 4 Abdul Latif Sayad Mohammed Saheb was another surety in respect of the said loan. Respondent No. 1 the Muslim National Co-operative Bank Limited, Poona, obtained an award against Shaikh Hasan and his sureties under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. Even after the award, the claim of the Bank was not satisfied. The Bank filed an application for execution of the award through the civil Court. It is not clear from the record before me as to what happened to the earlier darkhast filed by the Bank for exciting the award. On August 3, 1962, Regular Darkhast No. 875 of 1962 was filed by respondent No. 1 and the present revisi...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Radhamal Sangatmal Sindhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1969
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR468
Gokhale, J. (1) This is a reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Court No. 1 Kolhapur, under S. 341 of the Cr. P. c. The accused Radhamal Sangatmal Sindhi was alleged to have stabbed one Parumal on 2nd December 1958 as a result of which the said Parumal ultimately died in the Civil Hospital at Kolhapur. That is why committal proceedings were started against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that before the prosecution led evidence in the committal proceedings it was discovered that the accused was deaf and dumb and could not be made to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and the Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted a report to the learned Magistrate on 3-2-1959 to that effect. In support of his report, the father as well as the father-in-law of the accused were examined, as also one more witness by name Madhuma Dholumal, who was a neigh bout of the accused for several years. On the basis of this evidence the lowe...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Jayaram and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom117; (1970)72BOMLR258; ILR1971Bom150
Padhye, J.1. Original petitioners in this petition were two (1) Shankar Jayaram Ambedkar in his individual capacity and (2) Nagpur District Pensioners' Association, Nagpur, through its Honorary Secretary Mr. R. N. Gadre. After the petition was admitted the petitioners were required to give thenames of the pensioners of the petitioner No. 2 Association who had retired prior to 1-11-1956, but in spite of several opportunities being given, no names were supplied and the orders passed by this Court from time to time were not complied with. We are, therefore, not required to consider in this petition the case of those pensioners said to have been represented by the petitioner No. 2 and the decision of this case will be confined only so far as the petitioner No. 1 Shankar Jayaram Ambedkar is concerned.2. The petitioner No. 1 in the original petition will hereinafter be described as the petitioner only. The petitioner was employed in the year 1912 as an Overseer in the Agricultural Department...
Tag this Judgment!Marketing and Advertising Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Telerad Private Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1969
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas436(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. 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 in accordance with those terms. It may be stated that, under the said consent terms, an installment of Rs. 25,000 became payable on or before the 30th of 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 ar...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Mahipati Mullick Vs. Polson Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR655
Tarkunde, J.1. The first petitioner is an employee of the first respondent M/a, Poison Ltd. He is working in the Coffee factory run by the first respondent. In June 1959, a trade union representing the workmen in the Coffee factory raised certain demands, including demands for pay scales and dear-ness allowance. The demands were admitted in conciliation under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1917. In the course of conciliation proceedings a settlement was reached between the first respondent and the Union on 4th March I960. Under the settlement the lowest wage scale was Rs. 36-2-60 for mazdoors of different categories. As regards dearness allowance, the settlement provided that all workmen shall be paid dearness allowance at the revised scale as was then available to the operatives in the cotton textile industry in Bombay city. It was provided that the settlement was to remain in force till 31st December 1962.2. On 31st October 1964 the first petitioner, who was then working ...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabbhai Nathabhai Vs. Bai Jivi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR185
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The facts relevant to this appeal are short and no longer in dispute. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of Survey Nos. 974/2 and 975/4 situate in the village Delol in district Panchmahals and the appellant at the material time was the tenant thereof. On May 15, 1956, the appellant voluntarily handed over possession of the said lands to respondent No. 1. It is, however, an admitted fact that the said surrender was not in writing and the procedure of inquiry and verification required by Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, LXVII of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) was not gone through. The surrender though voluntary was thus not in accordance with Section 15 and therefore was not valid and binding on the appellant. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 thereafter personally cultivated the said lands. On January 16, 1961, the appellant applied to the Deputy Collector under Section 84 of the Act for summary eviction of respondent No. 1. The Deput...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›