Mumbai Court February 1969 Judgments
Diwalibai Damjibhai Bhatti and ors. Vs. Jaikumar Gopaldas JaIn and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Bom393; (1969)71BOMLR556; 1969MhLJ421
ORDER1. The petitioners in this case under Art, 227 of the Constitution are two windows of one Damjibhai and his two minor sons Liladhar and Champalal. They along with Damjibhai were occupying certain premises in Amravati town. The opponents are the landlords of those premises. /they filed an application on 2-12-1964 seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the premises under Clause 13 (3) (I) and (ii) of the Rent Control, Order. The proceedings seem to have protracted for a considerable time and were fixed for 27th January 1966. It may be mentioned that both parties were represented by their counsel before the Rent Controller. On 27th January 1966 the counsel of the opponents-landlords intimated to the Court that Damjibhai was dead. One Sureshchandra it appears, was present in Court on that date and he informed about Damjibhai's death, he being the nephew of Damjibhai The landlords counsel therefore wanted time to bring he legal representatives on record and case was adjourned t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Sheoramji Vs. Panjab Govindraoji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom96; (1970)72BOMLR173; ILR1971Bom222; 1969MhLJ425
Padhye, J.1. Village Jaola Shahapur in taluq Achalpur, district Amravati has been divided into four wards for the purposes of Village Panchayat Ward No. 4 with which we are concerned in this petition is a double-member constituency. The elections to the Village Panchayat in this village were held on 11-4-1967. The petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were the four candidates for election to the Village Panchayat from Ward No. 4. Two members were to be elected from this constituency. As a result of the counting on 13th April, 1667 it was found that the respondent No. 2 Ganeshrao Malluji secured 92 votes, the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 secured 87 votes each and the respondent No. 3 Hiraman secured 72 votes. Being a double-member constituency, the respondent No. 2 Ganeshrao who secured largest number of votes was first declared elected. So as to secure the second seat, there was a tie between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. each of them having secured 87 votes. Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchand Maroti Mandwale Vs. Malkapur Municipal Council, Malkapur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom154; (1970)72BOMLR240; ILR1971Bom165; 1969MhLJ540
Padhye, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the demand notice dated 21st January 1967 as being illegal and prays for a writ of prohibition to the respondents from making the recovery of the education tax on the basis of the said demand notice dated 21st January 1967. The petitioner also seeks a direction that the respondent No. 2, the state oi Mahara-shtra, bo ordered to restore and repay the amount of Rs. 775.50 to the petitioner which has been collected by the respondent No. 1 for respondent No. 2 towards the education tax for the period from 1962-63 to 1964-65. The petitioner further wants a prohibition against the respondents prohibiting them from further recovering any amount under the Maharashtra Education (Cess) Act, 1962 and the Rules thereunder. A relief is also claimed for a declaration that the Maharashtra Education (Cess) Act 1962 be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a residen...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Ramnath Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-iii, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR995(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. The petitioners in this case are a registered firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing bidis. The petitioners filed their return for the assessment year 1960-61 in which they claimed a deduction of Rs. 49,440 in respect of advertisement expenses in the form of the printing and distribution of calendars of the firm for that year, and that deduction was allowed by the Income-tax Officer who made the assessment. As, however, certain other deductions claimed by the petitioners were not allowed by the Income-tax Officer, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which, we are informed, is still pending. We are not concerned in this case with the assessment year 1961-62. For the assessment year 1962-63 also the petitioners filed their return in which they claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,17,924 on account of advertisement expenses in the form of the printing and distribution of calendars for that year, and the deduction was a...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Gopal Karadkar Vs. Hanumant Ramrao Palkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR477; 1969MhLJ728
Gatne, J.1. The appellant, who was the complainant in the Court below, has filed this appeal with a view to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadgaon (Mawal), in Criminal Case No. 475 of 1966 on his file.2. The person by whom the complaint in the Court below was filed was one Karadkar, an officer of the Lonavala Municipal Borough. There is a Railwaymen's Co-operative Society at Lonavala and a canteen was being conducted by that Society within the limits of the Municipal Borough at Lonavala. The accused in the Court below was the Manager of that canteen. Although he had taken out the necessary licence for the purpose of conducting that canteen during the year 1962-63, he continued to conduct the canteen during the following years without applying for and taking out the requisite licence on payment of the requisite fee to the Borough Municipality of Lonavala. The Borough Municipality, therefore, passed a resolution (exh. 6) dated Mar...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department Through A.G.P. Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom115; (1970)72BOMLR237; ILR1970Bom144; 1969MhLJ634
1. The petitioner is theState of Maharashtra in this petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution. The Statechallenges an order of the second respondent, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal inproceedings arising under the MaharashtraAgricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings)Act, 1961.2. On 26-7-1962 the first respondentDinkarrao furnished a return in respect olthe land held by his family under Section12 of the Ceiling Act. The return was inprescribed form I under Rule 4(1)(a) of theRules framed under the Ceiling Act. In thisreturn he showed himself, his wife, twodaughters, Vinabai and Rewati Rama, andtwo sons, Prakash and Umashankar. In allsix persons comprised as members of his family. A daughter was born to the first respondent on 21 -1-1964. In calculating the ceiling area available to this family out of the total area of 115 acres 16 gunthas situated at two villages Wariid and Tem-burkheda, the Sub-Divisional Officer determined the average ceiling limit to be 92 acres 22 gunthas. He al...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Muktabai Gangadhar Kadam Vs. Smt. Muktabai Laxman Palwankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR752
Bal, J.1. A short but interesting question of law of considerable importance arises for decision in this petition in the following circumstances.2. The petition is directed against a decree for eviction under the Rent Act. The petitioner is the tenant and opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the opponents) are her landlords in respect of a room in their house situated in Nana Peth at Poona, since several years. The agreed rent of the room was Rs. 15 per month. In February 1960, the opponents gave notice to the petitioner purporting to terminate her tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent, and within one month of the receipt of the notice the petitioner filed an application for fixation of standard rent in the Court of Small Causes at Poona. The opponents also thereafter filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in the same Court. Both the proceedings were heard together and terminated in favour of the petitioner. The standard rent of the room was fixed at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Manekshaw Rustomji Mehta and ors. Vs. A.N. Jijina and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom117; (1971)73BOMLR629; ILR1970Bom829; 1971MhLJ122
ORDER1. This revision application is filed by the petitioners, who are described in the application as plaintiffs, against an order passed on January 31, 1967 by the Judge in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay permanently staying the execution of the warrant of possession ordered to be issued in an ejectment application filed by the Predecessor in title of the petitioners, one Mrs. Mehroo M. Mehta against the opponents. 2. The ejectment application was filed on November 4, 1963 alleging that the opponents were licensees in respect of one of the rooms in Block No. C on the second floor of Mistry Buildings, Balaram Street, Grant Road Bombay No. 7. It was stated in the application that Mrs. Mehroo Mehta was the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. B. M. Maoji who lived in the said block and that the deceased Maoji had given the room in question to the opponents under an agreement of leave and licence. The said Maoji died on November 8, 1959 and the license was terminated by a letter addressed by an ...
Tag this Judgment!Samant N. Balakrishna Vs. George Fernandez
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR117
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. In the last General Election to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency eight candidates had offered themselves. The answering respondent Mr. George Fernandez secured 1,47,841 votes as against his nearest rival Mr. S. K. Patil who secured 1,18,407 votes. The remaining candidates secured a few thousand votes between them. The result of the poll was declared on February 24, 1967 and Mr. George Fernandez was returned. An election petition was filed by Mr. Samant N. Balakrishna, an elector in the constituency. It challenged the election of Mr. Fernandez and was ostensibly in the interest of Mr. S. K. Patil. The election., petition was keenly, contested and Mr. S. K. Patil gave his full support to the petition. The election petition failed and it was dismissed with an order for costs against the election petitioner and Mr. S. K. Patil. Two appeals have now been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, one by the election petitioner and th...
Tag this Judgment!Kacharu Baban Kothawale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom205; (1969)71BOMLR663; ILR1970Bom374
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal involving interesting points of law. The properties in dispute are agricultural lands survey Nos. 89 and 90 situated in village Sangavi Surya in Taluka Parner. Survey No. 89 measures 3 acres 29 gunthas and is assessed at Rs. 5-2-0. It is a Bagayat land called as 'Malai.' Survey No. 90 measures 12 acres 23 gunthas and is assessed at Rs. 3-12-0. It is a Jirayat land known as 'Wadi'. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands for a number of years. According to them, they and their ancestor have been in possession of the lands for over 60 or 70 years. One Waman Raghunath Kulkarni was shown In the record of rights extracts as the occupant of the said lands. The plaintiffs are shown in the record of rights as tenants of the said lands.2. The Talathi of the village reported to the Taluka Magistrate of Parner that the occupant Waman Raghunath was not known to be living and the lands were intestate property. The report of the Tala-thi was received b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »