Mumbai Court April 1969 Judgments
Maghraj Vs. Mst. Bayabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR434
J.C. Shah, J.1. Seth Haroon and Sons a firm had ten partners. The Hindu undivided family of Jethmal Ramkaran mortgaged a house belonging to it to Seth Haroon and Sons to secure repayment of Rs. 40,000 due at the foot of an account. Seth Haroon and Sons filed suit No. 12-A of 1936 for recovery of their dues by sale of the mortgaged house. On December 28, 1940, a decree was passed in the suit by the Additional District Judge. The case was carried in appeal to the High Court of Nagpur. But the appeal was dismissed subject to a slight modification to be presently noticed. An appeal was carried against the decree to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal to this Court, nine out of ten members of Seth Haroon and Sons migrated to Pakistan and were declared evacuees. By an order passed by this Court on March 28, 1958, the Custodian of Evacuee Property was impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal filed by the mortgagors. This Court dismissed the appeal on August 8, 1958. Thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Nityanand M. Joshi Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR184
Sikri, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the order of the Central Government Labour Court, Bombay, holding that the applications filed by the appellants against the Life Insurance Corporation of India under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, insofar as the claim was for a period beyond three years. In holding this the Labour Court followed the decision of the, Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in The Manager, P.K. Porwal v. Labour Court (1966) 70 Bom. L.R. 104. The Bombay High Court held that applications filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act prior to its amendment by Central Act XXXVI of 1964 were governed by the period of limitation laid down in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and this article applied to applications under laws other than those contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. This Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. The Presiding Of...
Tag this Judgment!Harikumar Radhakisan and ors. Vs. Uderam Ramkuwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom262; ILR1971Bom283; 1969MhLJ681
1. I am disposing of both these appeals by a common Judgment because the common questions of law and also the similar facts have to be dealt with in these two appeals. The plaintiff in both these suits which are the subject-matters of these two appeals is the same although the defendants are different. Both these appeals are by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. Amravati, dismissing the plaintiffs suits by confirming the decree of the Trial Court. These suits by the plaintiff are for the recovery of certain sums with interest on account of deposit with the defendants. In Appeal No. 313 of 1962, before me, the suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 977-3-0 with interest. The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 2600/- with interest in the Appeal No. 315 of 1962. The plaintiff, in the suit which is the subject-matter of Appeal No. 313, had deposited with the defendant's firm Rs. 500/- on 23-2-1950 under a deposit chithi scribed by the defendant. I...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Pillai Vs. Motilal Vrijbhukhandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom324; (1969)71BOMLR619; 1970CriLJ1216; ILR1970Bom184
1. The above 8 applications are filed by 'the accused against whom 8 cases are pending In the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The petitioners pray in these revision applications that the order passed on March 22, 1969 rejecting the application filed by the accused in case No. 957/P of 1968 and the charge framed by the Presidency Magistrate on March 25, 1969 against the respective accused in 8 cases should be set aside and the petitioners should be discharged. As these petitions involve common points and relate to common facts, they can be disposed of by one judgment. 2. The particulars of the charges framed against the petitioners in the 8 cases may be summarised and stated as in a tabular form as follows:-- No. of Criminal Revision Application No. of the case in the Court ot Presidency Magistrate.Names of the accused (Petitioners)Charges under what sections of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952Brief Particulars of the Charge1.282 of 1869957...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vijbhukhandas Vs. M.R. Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: 1969MhLJ875
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts and dealing with the first contention, proceeded.] The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the prosecution of the petitioners is based on evidence collected during the raid carried out on April 2, 1968, and this raid and search of the papers belonging to the accused was illegal because the police had not applied for a search warrant under Section 22A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. The learned Presidency Magistrate overruled this contention following an unreported judgment by Mr. Justice Chitale and Mr. Justice Palekar in State of Maharashtra v. Chandulal Kantilal (1964) Criminal Appeals No. 753, 797 to 801 of 1963, decided by Chitale and Palekar JJ., on April 3/6, 1904 (Unrep.) in which the conviction of the accused under Sections 20(e)(i) and 21(f) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, was challenged inter alia on the ground that the search made by the police without a warran...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Keshav Bedbkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR867; 1970MhLJ364
Chandrachud J.1. The appellant brought a suit for a declaration that the order dated January 30, 1964, issued by respondent No. 2(ii), the Secretary, State Board of Literature & Culture, terminating his services in the Vishwakosha Project at Wai, was illegal and void and that he continued to be in the services of respondent No. 1, the State of Maharashtra. The appellant contended, in the alternative, that he was appointed for a fixed period of five years and that; as his services were terminated prematurely, he was entitled to claim damages in the sum of Rs. 35,930, being the salary he would have drawn for the unexpired portion. He restricted this claim to Rs. 5,000 on the ground that he was not in a position to pay Court-fees 011 the full claim.2. By a resolution dated November 19, 1960, in the General Administration Department, the Government of Maharashtra established a 'State Board for Literature and Culture', for a period of five years in the first instance. The Board decided to c...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. the Advance Builders ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR657
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Thakkar dated November 23, 1966 whereby certain writs were granted against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay, the appellants before us. The writs were granted at the instance of the three respondents Messrs. Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd., Phalajitsingh Tulsidas Rajpal and Dahiben Umedbhai Patel who were the petitioners before the learned Judge. In the petition they had also joined two other persons as respondents to the petition, Shrichand Jairamdas and Miss Minoo V, Patel who had a common interest with the petitioners.2. The circumstances under which these writs came to be granted are briefly as follows:-On June 15, 1948 the then Municipal Committee of Bandra declared its intention to frame a scheme under Section 9(1) of the then operative Town Planning Act of 1'915. On May 7, 1951 the then Government of Bombay sanctioned the making- of ...
Tag this Judgment!Harikishan Agrawal Vs. the State of Maharshtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ788
ORDERWagle, J.1. This petition raises a question whether the City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor under the provisions of Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The few facts which require to be stated are these:3. On October 17, 1968, the accused, who is the Editor of 'Rashtradoot', published a statement in Hindi at Nagpur. Two copies of this statement were received in Bombay and on December 19, 1968, the Public Prosecutor filed a complaint charging the accused of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for having made aspersions against Balasaheb Desai, the Revenue Minister of Maharashtra. Service was effected on the accused on December 20, 1968, and after a witness Diwakar Gaonkar was examined, the charge was framed on February 4,, 1969.4. Thereafter on 17th and 18th the Revenue Minister and the other witnesses in. support of the prosecution were examined and the prosecution closed its case. The case ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur Vs. R.B. Bansilal A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1969
Reported in: [1971]79ITR104(Bom)
Padhye, J. 1. On being required by this court by its order dated 4th February, 1963, in Income-tax Applications Nos. 13 to 34 of 1961 Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara v. Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand, Kamptee, the Income-tax appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench-C, has referred to us under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the following three question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated April 23, 1960. 2. For assessment years 1944-45 to 1955-56. '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the advances made by the assessee-firm, R. B. Bansilal Abirchand, to the firm, Bisesar House, were in the nature of loans during the course of money-lending business and did not represent the capital contribution of the Daga group of partner 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure on litigation and the remuneration pai...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR346
S.M. Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat (Vakil J.) allowing the application filed by Patel Raghav Natha, respondent before us and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, and quashing the order dated October 12, 1961, passed by the Commissioner, Rajkot Division. The Commissioner by this order had set aside the order of the Collector, dated July 2, 1960, granting permission to the petitioner to use some land in Survey No. 417 for non-agricultural purposes.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us it is necessary to set out a few facts. The petitioner was a resident of the State of Rajkot and at an auction effected by the State he acquired on or about September 22, 1938. agricultural land bearing survey No. 417 which in all measured about 12 acres and 12 gunthas. After some acquisitions by the State out of this survey number he was left with 2 acres and 10 gunthas of agricultural land. On October 20, 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »