Mumbai Court September 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.
C.P. Khanna Vs. V.K. Kalghatgi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom201; (1970)72BOMLR295; ILR1970Bom805; 1970MhLJ450
Patel, J.1. This is an application which the petitioner has filed even before the Officer on Special Duty has made any order under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and referred the dispute to arbitration as required by it for arresting the proceedings. In short the petitioner wants to smother any proceedings at all before the Officer on Special Duty and wants this Court to go into the question of merits without permitting the said Officer to apply his mind, to the proceedings.2. Facts as alleged by the petitioner are as follows:Respondent No. 5 is a member of the Society Respondent No. 4 and as such holds two flats Nos. 10 and 11 in the buildingof the Society. The petitioner says that respondent No. 5 agreed to transfer to him his interest in the flats, his share holdings etc., for Rs. 70,000 which he paid to him. The agreement is of March 1, 1967, They jointly gave intimation to respondent No. 4 and requested that the petitio...
The National Rayon Corporation Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR516
K.K. Desai, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts and the contentions of the parties, proceeded.] Now, it appears to us that the direct result of the findings made by the Supreme Court in the Orient Weaving Mills v. Union of India : [1968]1SCR1 , is that even in the matter of impost of excise duty as between two or more manufacturers the law permits preference in favour of groups validly classified for levying different rates of duty. The principle, if any, that indirect taxes must be uniform in respect of assessees and particularly in respect of impost of excise duty was not accepted or followed by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, the observations of the Supreme Court show that it was permissible for the Central Government in connection with levy of excise duty by preference to protect petty producers from unreasonable competition and to classify differently goods produced by big establishments and similar goods produced by small establishments.2. The further principles which ...
Aspendiar K. Irani Vs. Jini Jehangir Ghamat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom213; (1970)72BOMLR626; 1971CriLJ945; ILR1971Bom353
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a co-owner of a building called 'Ghamat Terrace,' Tulsi Pipe Road. Dadar, has been convicted on a complaint filed by her tenant under Section 26(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter called 'the Act.' The learned Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar has sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four days.2. Section 26 of the Act runs thus:--'(1) Every landlord shall give a written receipt for any amount at the time when such amount is received by him in respect of any premises in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any landlord or person who fails to give a written receipt for any amount received by him in respect of any premises shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.' Now, it is not as if no written receipt at all was given by the landladies to the tenant for the rent paid by him. The all...
Lalit J. Patel Vs. T.R. Bhide
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR366; 1970MhLJ459
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an action for dissolution of partnership and for accounts between persons who carried on business as architects and civil engineers in Bombay. Before any evidence was led, the disputes in the suit and counterclaim were referred to the arbitration of an architect named Divecha. It is common ground that during the arbitration proceedings there were negotiations, but there is a dispute between the parties as to whether those negotiations culminated in a concluded compromise in regard to certain matters or not. According to the plaintiff' and defendant No. 2, they did result in a concluded compromise in regard to certain matters which were the subject-matter of the arbitration, whilst according to defendant No. 1 no concluded compromise was arrived at between the parties at all in regard to any of the matters which formed the subject-matter of the arbitration. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2, therefore, took out a notice of motion on January 24, 1969, for the reco...
Dhanse Deosa Kalal Vs. Vasudeo Shioram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom151; (1971)73BOMLR293; ILR1971Bom530; 1970MhLJ965
Kotval, C.J.1. By his order of reference dated 17-9-1968. Abhyankar, J. referred two questions stated in his order; but having heard counsel, we think that the questions ought to be reframed in order to bring out more precisely the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we have re-framed the questions which are as follows:(1) Whether a person holding under a lease from a maintenance holder having a right to be in possession of the land only during her lifetime, without any other right of alienation except the right to lease, could claim the right or status of a deemed tenant under Section 6 of the new Tenancy Act as against the owner or tenure-holder of the property? and(2) Whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to the facts of this case? The alteration and its significance will appear as we state the facts out of which the reference arises and the points argued and to be decided.2. Survey No. 11/1 of mouza Dhangarkheda, tahsil and district Amravati, belonged to one Namdeo ...
The Himalaya Drug Co. Vs. Warner-lambert Pharmaceutical Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR528
Mody, J.1. By this petition the petitioners who are a firm have filed an appeal against the Judgment and Order of the Deputy Registrar dismissing the Opposition filed by the petitioners before him. The respondent is a Company incorporated in the State of New Jersey, U.S.A. Both the petitioners and the respondent carry on business as manufacturers of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.2. On 20th May, 1955 the petitioners' trade mark 'NARDYL' was registered in respect of goods in Class 5 of Part A of the Register. On 8th March, 1960 the respondent company filed an application before the Registrar for registration of its trade mark 'NARDELZINE' in Part A of the Register in respect of goods in Class 5. On 19th April, 1962 the petitioners filed a Notice of Opposition to the registration of the respondent's said mark. On 30th July, 1964, the Assistant Registrar dismissed the petitioners' Opposition. On 21st October, 1964 the petitioners filed an appeal to this Court. In that appeal a ...
Eknath Bhanudas Utane Vs. Shankarrao Deorao Jumde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom1; 1971MhLJ546
Kotval, C.J.1. This reference raises an important question under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949. The question is whether a landlord in occupation of a house or a portion of a house of his own in the city or town concerned has any right at all to apply for permission to evict his tenant under Clause 13(3) (vi) of the said Order, on the ground that the landlord needs the house or a portion thereof for the purpose of his bona fide occupation.2. Eknath the petitioner, was a tenant of house No. 130 in ward No. 29 of Amravati town, of which Shankar, the landlord, was the owner. The house is a two-storeyed building. On the first floor there is only a big hall which at the material time was in possession of the tenant at Rs. 30/- per month. On the ground floor, there are six rooms of which four were let out by the respondent No. 1 the landlord to the petitioner. The remaining two rooms were in possession of the landlord. The landlord applied for p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›