Mumbai Court April 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jai Nath Wanchoo Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom180; (1970)72BOMLR51; ILR1970Bom887
Madan, J.1. The Petitioner is a civilian in the defence services. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside an order passed by the President of India terminating his services as Lecturer in the National Defence Academy, Khadakvasla, and reverting him to the post of Section Master, Rashtriya Indian Military College, Dehra Dun, his parent department, on which post he held a lien, and a consequential order directing him to proceed to Dehra Dun on reversion to his parent department.2. In September 1947 the Petitioner was appointed as Section Master in the Prince of Wales Royal Indian Military College at Dehra Dun (now known as 'The Rashtriya Indian Military College') in the grade of Rs. 275-50-800- with duty allowance of Rs. 100/- per month and free accommodation. This appointment was for a period of one year pending recruitment of a candidate through the Federal Public Service Commission. In 1948 three posts of Section Master and six posts of Senior Mas...
Gangabai Vs. President Municipal Council, Tumsar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom170; (1970)72BOMLR214; ILR1969Bom1048; 1969MhLJ654
Abhyankar, J. 1. The petitioner Gangabai has filed this petition under Articles 228 and 227 of the Constitution claiming the following reliefs:-- (1) That the notice dated 23-9-1967 (annexure A) and the proceedings of the metting dated 28-9-1967 (annexure N) stating therein that the petitioner is not a member be quashed;(2) That the Annexures D and E said to be the copies of the resignation of petitioner dated 23-9-1967 be also quashed and it be further declared that the petitioner continues to be the member of Municipal Council, Tumsar;(3) That a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents nos. 1 to 3 directing them to treat the petitioner as a Municipal Councillor and give her all privileges and rights of a Councillor under the provisions or the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965; and(4) That an interim order be passed staying the effect of Annexures D and E and ordering further that the petitioner be continued as a member of the Municipal Council till the decision of the p...
Bhaskar Narayanrao Band Vs. the Vice-chancellor, Nagpur University
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1969
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR670
Deshmukh, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded], So far as the main petition is concerned, it is contended that the provisions of Section 12 of the Nagpur University Act and Regulation No. 8 read with Regulations 45 and 54 clearly clothe the Vice-Chancellor with the power to refuse to send a particular topic or resolution to the agenda, It is incidentally alleged that the petitioner has not moved this Court out of any particular regard for the proper working of the University or the proper functioning of the Vice-Chancellor. He has a personal axe to grind, and a Committee has been appointed by the Vice-Chancellor to enquire into the complaints received against the petitioner as the Principal of a College. Even that reference has no particular relevance for deciding the very limited issue that arises, in this writ petition.2. According to me, the proposition that follows for decision is very simple and equally clear. Before I examine the provisions of the Nagpur Uni...
Rajiyabi Cosman Sayi and anr. Vs. Mackinon Machinazie and Co. Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom278; (1970)72BOMLR358
Nathwani, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by original applicants against the order of Mr. Justice Chitale dated 28th February, 1966, setting aside the order of the Commissioner awarding Rs. 4,000 as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The facts of the case are as follows:--The original applicant No. 1 is the widow of one Oosman Baba, who was employed as a seacunny on a ship named S. S. 'Caltex London' belonging to M/s. British Industries Navigation Company Ltd. of which the original opponents are the Agents. On December 15, 1960, Oosman Baba signed the articles and boarded the said ship 'Caltex London'. While working on the said ship as a seacunny Oosman Baba fell ill on January 20, 1961, when the said ship was at Bahrain and was immediately taken to Awali Hospital, Bahrin. On admission he complained of chest pain for the previous week with cough and expectoration. He was treated for his illness in the hospital. On or abo...
Rajiyabai Oosman Sayi Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ320Bom; 1970MhLJ705
Per Nathwani, J.1. At the outset Mr. Noronha, the learned advocate on behalf of the opposite party-respondents, raised a preliminary objection. He contends that there is no appeal to the High Court under the Act against an order of the Commissioner except under S. 30 of the Act, that the order passed by Mr. Justice Chitale under the said S. 30 is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and therefore the present appeal is not maintainable. He developed his point by arguing that the proceedings before a Commissioner under the Act are in the nature of an arbitration and his decision an award; that he is not a Court; that the proceedings in appeal before the High Court under S. 30 of the Act are a mere continuation of the original proceedings before the Commissioner and do not change their original nature and therefore the order passed by the learned Judge does not amount to a judgment. In support of his contention he relied upon decisions in Secretary of Stat...
Prabhudas Kalyanji Adhia Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom134; (1969)71BOMLR470; 1970CriLJ455
1. The only question which arises in this appeal filed by Prabhudas Kalyanji Adhia against his conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for manufacturing, stocking and selling on July 15, 1966 the substance which he described as 'D. D. T. compound' without a licence under the said Act is, whether the said D. D. T. compound is a drug within the meaning of that Act.2. The accused did not dispute that at the relevant time he was manufacturing stocking and selling at 121, Parel Tank Road, Parel, Bombay 12, as proprietor of M/s. Hill Side Products D. D. T. compound, but he denied that the substance which he was manufacturing or selling was intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals as mentioned in a notification of the Government, of India under Section 3(b)(ii). He relied on a label which was used on his product which he produced. On one side of the label there is a picture of ...
Anandkumar Parmanand Kejriwala and anr. Vs. Kamaladevi Hiralal Kejriwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom231; (1969)71BOMLR801; ILR1971Bom264
Patel, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the suit should have been stayed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A few facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendants were partners. The suit was filed by the plaintifffor a declaration that the Firm was dissolved and for taking accounts of the partnership. This suit was filed on January 20, 1969. On the same day the plaintiff made an application for receiver and for injunction, An ex parte order was granted appointing the Court Receiver to take charge of all books of accounts, vouchers, papers etc., connected with the partnership and in possession of the mediator, K.M.D. Thakersey. An interim injunction was also granted, one particular direction being In a mandatory form regarding the continuance of the supply of steam from the boiler to the plaintiff. The papers of the motion and the plaint were served on the defendants on the same day. The cer...
Zarina Umer Chamdewala Vs. Sati Lalchand Verumal Lalwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR809
Patel, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice K. K. Desai, who did not permit the appellant-defendant before us to defend the suit against her filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff on the ground that her licence had terminated and that she was, therefore, not entitled to the possession, the reason being that during- the pendency of the suit she was adjudicated an insolvent. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows: On November 1, 1962, an agreement was entered into between the- plaintiff and defendant No. 1 called an agreement of leave and licence by which she agreed to be in occupation of the premises in dispute on a monthly compensation of Rs. 400 split up into Rs. 250 for occupation and Rs. 150 for hire charges for furniture which apparently there was none and also certain outgoings. Initially it was said to be for eleven months with an option to defendant No. 1 to renew it. She had also to pay Rs. 1,200 as deposit...
Yusuf Abdulla Patel Vs. R.N. Shukla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR575
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order passed by respondent No. 1 on June 29, 1958 confiscating 75 bars of silver of the value of nearly Rs. 12 lakhs belonging to the petitioner and lying at the godown of a transport company named M/s Reliable Roadways in Bombay under Section 118 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposing a personal penalty of rupees twenty lakhs on the petitioner under Section 114 of the said Act, and for a writ of mandamus against the respondents directing them to withdraw, cancel or set aside the said order dated June 29, 1968 and to forbear from enforcing the same.2. The facts of the case are that, in consequence of information received by them, the customs authorities seized on December 28, 1967, 120 bars of silver from a motor lorry bearing No. MRS 5188 at a place near Bassein which, according to them, had earlier been seen being loaded in the said lorry fr...
Padgilwar Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1969
Reported in: [1971]81ITR258(Bom)
Abhyankar, J. 1. The following questions said to arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are referred to this court : '(1) In view of the concession of the assessee that penalty was attracted, it is open to the assessee to object to the legality and the validity of the penalty order (2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice dated February 21, 1963, by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(c) and the notice dated December 1, 1964, issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(1) read with section 271(1)(c) are beyond the jurisdiction of the respective officers and bad in law (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the concealment of income established and the imposition of penalty justified ?' 2. [The learned Judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows :] 3. The assessee-fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »