Mumbai Court September 1969 Judgments
Madanlal Shankar Maliwal and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom249; (1970)72BOMLR300; 1970MhLJ446
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the correctness of the Commissioner's order and decision dated May 30, 1967 whereby in the suo motu enquiry held by the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, the Commissioner held that six lands of the second petitioner Godavaribai, (being the wife of the first petitioner), consisting of the aggregate area of 83 acres 4 gunthas, were liable to be added to the 112 acres and 19 gunthas of the land-holding of the first petitioner for ascertaining the surplus lands held by the first petitioner in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the above Act.2. On the return being filed by the first petitioner originally the Collector, Parbhani by his decision and order dated November 80, 1964 held that the first petitioner was the owner of lands of the aggregate area of 110 acres 32 gunthas. Ona hundred find eight acres ...
Tag this Judgment!Motiram Ramchandra Kharwade Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1969
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR178; 1970MhLJ526
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner, who is a tenant, is challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding that opponent No. 3, who is a landholder, is entitled to possession of field survey number 44/1, area 16 acres, 16 gunthas of Navasari, taluq and district Amravati, which was retained by the tenant after the landholder had resumed the remaining portion of that field for personal cultivation. In Revenue Case No. 295/59 (6) of 1960-61 the landholder, who had started a proceeding for resumption of field survey number 44/1 under Section 3D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, referred to as the Tenancy Act, was held entitled to resume half the area of this field for personal cultivation by an order passed by the Naib-Tahsildar, Amravati on October 23, 19G1. The appeal against this order filed by the tenant came to be rejected on December 31, 1963 and neither the tenant nor the landholder appears to have agitated this matter furth...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Ananda Patil and ors. Vs. Tukaram Dattu Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom29; (1970)72BOMLR379; ILR1971Bom1074
1. A point of some importance is raised in this second appeal and the point is when should a mortgage debt be deemed to be barred by limitation for the purpose of making an application under the provisions of Section 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. 2. The point arises in this way. 12 gunthas out of Survey No. 339 and 1 acre and 15 gunthas out of Survey No. 341 of Takali in District Kolhapur belonged to one Dattu Sakharam Patil, the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2, and he transferred the same to one Ananda Patil, the father of defendant No. 1, on 2-6-1917 under a registered deed as per Exh. 42 for a sum of Rs. 500/-. The deed purported to be a conditional sale deed and contained a provision that the vendor would pay the principal amount of Rs. 500/- at any time after five years and before the expiry of 15 years from the date of the deed and would redeem and get back the lands. The lands were accordingly put in possession of the vendee and remained in his possession till 1...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rite and Co. Vs. Chandrakant Harilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1969
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR423
Gatne, J.1. These two appeals challenge two different orders passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay in the proceeding of Suit No. 2936 of 1960.2. The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants with a view to recover possession of the suit premises on the footing that the defendants, who were originally his licensees, were no longer entitled to occupy the premises after revocation of their licence. That suit was resisted by the defendants, hut the same eventually ended in an ex-parte decree for possession against them on March 22, 1968 and for the purpose of setting aside that ex-parte decree, they took out a Notice of Motion on March 25, 1968. That Notice of Motion was heard by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on April 1, 1968 and he held that the defendants had shown sufficient cause for not remaining present on the day of hearing, but instead of straightway setting aside the ex-parte decrees passed against them, what he did was to di...
Tag this Judgment!Devji Keshavji and Co. Vs. Dahibai Bhailal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom285; (1970)72BOMLR267; ILR1970Bom1048; 1970MhLJ547
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the building known as Neela Bhuvan, M/s. Bindraban Jain and Sons was a tenant of a godown consisting of four galas on the ground floor. The tenant sub-let three galas out of them to respondent No. 2 and the remaining to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant, M/s. Bindraban Jain and Sons being R. A. E. Suit No, 813/4237 of 1956. The petitioner on its own application was made a party to the suit. A Decree was passed against the original tenant on July 13, 1959 and the suit against the petitioner was dismissed and respondent No. 1 agreed to recognize the petitioner as direct tenant of the entire godown. The petitioner paid all arrears of rent to respondent No. 1 upto July 31. 1959 in respect of the entire godown, costs and Municipal taxes. Respondent No. 1 granted a lease for one year commencing from August 1, 1959. The date of the lease is December 4, 1959. The petitioner admits that respondent No. 2 became...
Tag this Judgment!Arlabs Ltd. Vs. A.K. Bandyopadhyay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT684(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner Company, being manufacturer of dye-stuffs, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', challenges the legality of the notice of demand, respective dated December 24, 1965 and January 24, 1966 purported to have been issued under rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and demanding from the Company payment of the two respective sums of Rs. 41,152.25 and Rs. 83,238.14 as also the decision of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona, dated March 26, 1966 whereby the Collector negatived the contentions of the company relating to these notices of demands being illegal and not enforceable. 2. Following the judgment of a Division Bench of court dated 1/2 July, 1965 in Appeal No. 69 of 1963 we are about to accept the company's contentions that those notices of demands were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by rule 10-A, we have prevented the company from arguing all other contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Madhao Tatya Sonar Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom106; (1971)73BOMLR755; 1970MhLJ991
Kotval, C.J.1. The short question that arises in this reference is whether it is essential for a landlord to obtain an order for possession of a field in regard to which a tenant has terminated his tenancy by surrendering his interest in favour of the landlord and the surrender has been verified under Section 20 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The petitioner is the landlord, Sampat, the respondent No. 3 was his tenant, and the respondent No. 4 is a transferee from the petitioner after he took the alleged surrender. The field involved is survey No. 15/1 of WakiKhurd in Chikhalitaluq of Buldana district. Sampat the respondent No. 3 became the tenant of the petitioner sometime in the year 1951-52. On 4-8-60, however, Sampat executed a surrender deed in respect of this field under Section 20 of the new Tenancy Act. In the document, it is recited that the tenant was surrendering all his rights without consideration and that he had handed over posses...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumaran Vs. the Competent Authority (The Assistant Housing Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom177; (1970)72BOMLR487; 1970MhLJ513
K. K. Desai, J. 1. In this petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the Competent Authority, being the Assistant Housing Commissioner, South Bombay, dated September 13, 1963, made under Section 53-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, directing the petitioner to vacate tenement No. 28/991 situated at Tilak Nagar, Chembur, which was then being occupied by the petitioner as a tenant and the appellate order dated February 10, 1966, made by the State Government confirming the above order of eviction. 2. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows: The petitioner was a tenant of the Housing Board in respect of the above premises from 1954 and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 28,55. His case is that he got married in 1958 and he had been continuously residing in the tenement. He was served with a show-cause notice dated February 23, 1963, by the Competent Auth authority whereby he was informed that- (1) he had sub...
Tag this Judgment!Rustom K. Amuyan Vs. Manu Subedar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR264; 1970MhLJ537
Patel, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of a Notice of Motion for injunction taken out by him. The respondent is a trustee of Lotus Trust which owns the property known as Lotus Cinema on Dr. Annie Besant Road, Bombay-18. He is Chairman of the board of trustees. The construction of the Cinema house was completed somewhere about 1957. It appears that there were negotiations between the plaintiff and the trustees for conducting a canteen in the Cinema House about that time. On March 15, 1957, the respondent addressed a letter to the plaintiff as follows:With reference to your letter dated 14th of March, you are under a mis-apprehension. The other stalls in the theatre would deal with other things like books, clothes or fancy articles, but the eatables and drinking required by the Cinema visitors would be confined to the Conductor of the canteen on the terms and conditions which we have fixed with you.We strongly disapprove of your attitude in prolonging the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: British India General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom102
ORDER1. This petition is filed for winding up of the British India General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') on the ground that it is unable to pay its debt. The company carried on business of insurance. The petitioner used to carry on the business inter alia of producing and distributing brochures entitled 'Cricket's in The Air' during the visits of foreign cricketing teams in India. This business was carried on by him in the name and style of Messrs. Engisports, Bombay. In or about the year 1966. the petitioner had taken out what he described a special contingency policy to cover the risk of non-production and/or non-distribution of his brochures during the tour of the West Indies Cricket Team in the year 1966-67. In or about October 1968 it was reported that the M. C. C. Cricket Team was likely to tour India during December 1968 or January-February 1969. Upon payment of a premium of Rs. 800/- the petitioner took from the Company a special contingency ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »