Mumbai Court November 1969 Judgments
Arjun Khimji Ginning and Pressing Co. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1969
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR861
Madon, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated August 23, 1969, made by the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1, whereby the State Government set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yeotmal, dated September 12, 1967 holding that the petitioners were entitled to refund of certain amounts paid by them as gin, bale and boja tax.2. The petitioners own a Ginning and Pressing Factory situated at Yeotmal within the municipal limits of the Yeotmal Municipal Council, respondents No. 2. On August 2, 1910, the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces issued a Notification No. 823 under Section 44, Sub-sections (1) and (5) of the Berar Municipal Law, 1886. The said Notification was in the following terms:NOTIFICATION.Nagpur, the 2nd August, 1910.No. 828. With reference to Section 44, Sub-sections (7) and (8) of the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, it is hereby notified that the Municipal Committee of Yeotmal in the Yeotmal District,...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Bandhu Deshmukh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom438; (1970)72BOMLR405; 1970CriLJ1622
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a confirmation case in respect of the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge at Satara against accused No. 2 before him. The same has come up for hearing along with the appeal filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the trial Judge. It may be mentioned that the trial Judge had acquitted the 3rd accused in the said case.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of the matter before us are that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers, and they had a third brother named Shankar who was married to the deceased Housabai. Shankar died some time in the year 1952, without issue and, after his death, Housabai adopted Varkari Sampraday and was residing in a Math at Pandharpur conducted by one Madan Maharaj. The deceased Madhav Buwa was the Secretary of the Math and witness Macchindra was also one of its inmates. Housabai used to reside in the premises of the Math after the death of her husband, but she claim...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Deoba Patil and anr. Vs. Ganpatilal Shiodayal Chamedia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom87; ILR1971Bom433
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by the defendant from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Darwha, in Civil Suit No. 266 of 1959. The applicants are directed to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 30,000/-to cover the costs, mesne profits and future mesne profits that may be accrued to the plaintiff-opponent. A further order is made by the Civil Judge that if they fail to furnish the security within fifteen days from the date of the order, the defence of the defendants shall stand struck off from the record.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the applicants with a prayer for their ejectment from the suit field admeasuring 75 acres and also claiming mesne profits at a rate of Rs. 1333.33 per annum. The applicants here have claimed tenancy rights and, therefore, an order was made under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, referring the issue of tenancy to the Mamlatdar. The mamlatdar has found that applicant No. 1 was a tenant. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Rajkumar Lines Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR271; 1970MhLJ503
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded]. In view of these contentions before us, the first question that arises in these two appeals is whether the orders passed by Mr. Justice Mody in the two suits on September 10, 1969 were orders under Order IX, Rule 8 or orders passed in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. A perusal of the orders which have been set out above will show that these orders must have been passed under Order IX, Rule 8. In the order passed in suit No. 11 of 1966 Mr. Justice Mody has in terms found that the counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs was unable to answer the questions put to him and even the names of the witnesses were not known to him and the plaintiffs were not even contacted to ascertain as to what evidence was to be led. In suit No, 1 of 1967, whose dismissal followed soon thereafter, a similar note is made in the minutes that the counsel stated that there were 21 plaintiffs and that...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. S.B. Mahajani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom306; (1970)72BOMLR299
ORDER1. It appears that, in connection with certain documents, the State Government being the defendant in the suit, at the stage of answers to interrogatories, raised a contention that the documents were privileged, and by the order dated March 13, 1969, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, held that the submissions made about the privilege claimed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government were insufficient. His order was: 'I therefore disallow the prayer regarding the privilege.' By a further order dated July 15, 1969, the learned Judge rejected the application (Ex. 37) made on behalf of the State Government for reconsidering . the question of privilege. The submission on behalf of the State Was that, in the fresh affidavit which was then filed, facts relevant to the question of privilege had been stated. The question should, therefore, be reconsidered. The learned Judge then held that, having regard to his previous order dated March 13, 1969, it would not b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sitabai Adkuji Meshram Vs. District Transport Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1969
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR768
Bhole, J.1. This is an application in revision by the original plaintiffs. They have come in revision against an order dated February 14, 1969 passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1967, arising out of the plaintiff's civil suit No. 89 of 1965 decided on March 31, 1967 by the Court of the 10th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The action by the plaintiffs was for the recovery of damages on account of the loss of life of one Adkuji Vithobaji Meshram, the husband of applicant No. 1 and the father of applicant No. 2. It was alleged that he died due to the rash and negligent act of opponents Nos. 2 and 3, who were the original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Defendant No. 2 was the driver who was running the bus of defendant No. 1-District Transport Company-and defendant No. 3 was the conductor. It appears that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were trying to take this bus belonging to defendant No. 1 in a flood on a bridge on the river Aam ne...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai and Company Vs. Babajee Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1969
Reported in: [1971(21)FLR109]; (1970)IILLJ334Bom; 1970MhLJ454
1. The grievance of the petitioners in this revisional application is that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation wrongly held in favour of the opponent that she was entitled to continue the original application filed for compensation by her deceased husband, and in that connection the Commissioner wrongly rejected the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the application for bringing the opponent on record was not made within the period of limitation prescribed. 2. In the submission of Mr. Rele for the petitioners, the application for bringing the opponent on record was much after the application had abated and was barred by limitation. The application should have been rejected. 3. Mr. Rele's attempt was to rely upon the provisions of O. XXII, r. 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of his above submission. The contention was that the original applicant died on September 25, 1967, and the application for bringing the opponent being the widow of the deceased ap...
Tag this Judgment!Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1969
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas377(Bom); [1971]41ITR377(Bom)
1. As these two notices of motion were heard together, it will be convenient to dispose of them any one judgment. Both the above suits arise out of the appointment for a further term of Kilachand Devchand and Co. Private Ltd., the second defendants in Suit No. 522 of 1969 and the fifth defendants in Suit No. 681 of 1969, as the sold selling agents of Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., the first defendants in both the suits. It will be convenient to refer to these two companies hereinafter as 'the private company' and 'the company', respectively. 2. These notices of motion were argued elaborately and at great length and as if their hearing were a dress rehearsal for the hearing of the suits. I propose to set out first the material facts necessary for understanding the matters in controversy between the parties and deal with the other facts while considering the rival contentions under each head of controversy raised before me. The company was incorporated on January 20, 1960, as a result of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›