Mumbai Court August 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.
Atmaram Onkar Talele Vs. Ananda Shrawan Kolambe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR287; 1970MhLJ569
Deshpande, J.1. These two Special Civil Applications are connected matters and raise an interesting question as to the true scope and interpretation of Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The facts giving' rise to this litigation are simple and few. Ananda Shrawan Kolambe the petitioner in Special 'Civil Application No. 1746 of 1965 is the landlord and owner of survey No. 925/1B measuring two acres, six gunthas and assessed at Rs. 1.14 and situated at village Yawal, district Jalgaon, while respondent Atmaram Onkar Talele in the said Special Civil Application is admittedly the tenant thereof. The landlord made an application on May 6, 1959, for exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. An enquiry was held in the presence of the tenant and order granting the said exemption and directing the issue of the said certificate was passed on July 7, 1959. On the strength of the said certificate the la...
Ramchandra Mahadeorao Mahankal Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR666; 1970MhLJ116
Abhyankar, J.1. The two petitioners, Ramchandra son of Mahadeorao Mahankal and Sharadchandra son of Ramchandra Mahankal, seek quashing of a certificate issued by respondent No. 4, the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, under Section 137(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in favour of respondent No. 5, the Nagpur District Land Development Bank, Ltd., Nagpur, and as a consequence the sale of Khasra No. 78/1 of village Narayanpur at an auction and purchase by respondent No. 6 Shaliram. The petitioners have also impleaded respondents Nos. 7 to 11 who are said to be subsequent transferees of interest in the property, and respondent No. 12 who is alleged to be a lessee of the field. The petitioners, as members of their joint Hindu family, were share-holders of respondent No. 5 Co-operative Bank originally incorporated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. By virtue of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, respon...
Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom56; (1970)72BOMLR871; 1971CriLJ324
Chandrachud, J. 1. By these petitions, the author and publisher of a book called 'Gandhi-hatya Ani Mee' (Gandhi-assassination And I) challenge an order of forfeiture passed by the Delhi Administration under Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Application No. 332 of 1968 is filed by the author Gopal Vinayak Godse, while Criminal Application 333 of 1968 is filed by the publisher, Ganapati Vasudeo Behere who runs a publishing house called 'Asmita Prakashan'. The book is written in Marathi and was printed and published in Poona.2. The 1st Respondent to the petitions is the Union of India which is joined, presumably because the constitutionality of Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code is challenged. No relief as such is claimed against the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is the Delhi Administration which passed the impugned order of forfeiture on the 26th September, 1968 in supersession of an earlier order dated the 6...
Cooper Engineering Ltd., Bombay Vs. D.M. Aney and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR201; (1971)ILLJ613Bom
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner company, employers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') has challenged the legality of the order or reference dated January 25, 1969, made by the State Government under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the disputes Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the order. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the petition may be shortly stated as follows :- The company has business of a factory at Chinchwad near Poona where it is engaged in production and manufacture of machine tools of different types and classes. About 800 workmen are working in the factory. Prior to July 6, 1963, the 3rd respondent trade union represented the majority of the workman at the factory and made an agreement dated July 6, 1963, in connection with dearness allowance payable to the workmen. In the agreement the payment of dearness allowance was linked with the cost of living index prevalent at Sholapu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›