Mumbai Court January 1970 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.
Menkabai Vs. Manohar Mukundrao Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom21; (1971)73BOMLR478; ILR1972Bom413; 1970MhLJ927
Padhye, J. 1. The present applicant Menkabai had filed a suit for partition against her step sons and their alienees. That suit was dismissed. In the suit she was permitted to sue as a pauper. The property in suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 19,767/-. The suit was contested by the defendants contending that there was already a prior partition by which the plaintiff got certain property and she was not entitled to claim a partition afresh. The defence prevailed and the suit was dismissed. Against the dismissal of her suit, the present applicant has filed the application for permission to file the appeal in forma pauperis. Rule on this application was issued.2. Under the proviso to Rule 2 of Order 44, Civil Procedure Code, if the applicant was allowed to sue as a pauper in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, no further enquiry in respect of his pauperism shall be necessary, unless the appellate Court sees cause to direct such enquiry. The property whic...
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR747
Vaidya, J.1. The above 173 appeals arc filed under Section 218D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act against an order dated June 5, 1964, passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay, dismissing ] 99 municipal appeals filed before him under Section 217 of the said Act. The appellants in all these appeals have been called upon by the Bombay Municipal Corporation to pay halalkhor tax at 3| per cent, of the rateable value of their respective properties. The appellants filed the respective appeals before the Chief Judge under Section 217 of the Act challenging the validity of the demands made on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In most of the appeals the bills which were sent by the Municipal Corporation related to the period from April 1, 1963 to September 30, 1963. It is not necessary to refer to the period of the bills in the other appeals which are mentioned in detail in the judgment of the learned Chief Judge. The appellants in the aforesaid appeals raised ...
Madansa Annasa JaIn Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom34; (1972)74BOMLR568; 1971MhLJ338
1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the decree and judgment, dismissing his suit, passed by the Court of the Small Causes, Akola. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Union of India representing the Central Railway Administration, Bombay, as well as the Northern Railway Administration New Delhi, for compensation for non-delivery of goods as well as for conversion of goods. The case of the plaintiff is that on 5-1-1962 one Amarnath Harindramohan, a commission agent of Tanakur booked five bags of stoke flowers from Tanakpur Railway Station on the Northern Railway to Akola Railway Station on the Central Railway under a railway receipt. The consignment was booked to self and the railway receipt was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. It was sent through the Akola branch of the Allahabad Bank, The plaintiff deposited the necessary sum in the Bank and obtained the railway receipt for the purpose of presenting it to the railway authorities at Akola. The plaint...
Atmaram Panduji Tidke Vs. Prabhawatibai Dattatraya Pakode and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom148; (1971)73BOMLR470; 1970MhLJ805
1. This is a revision application by the original defendant No. I against the judgment dated 21st November 1967 of the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Yeotmal, deciding certain preliminary issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court against the applicant.2, The dispute is about survey No. 51 of village Madni, tahsil and district Yeotmal, admeasuring about 35 acres 36 gunthas. One Dattatraya, who is the defendant No. 2 in the suit, was the owner of the said land. Atmaram, the defendant No. 1. was his tenant in the year 1958-59. However, on 7th May 1963 Atmaram executed a receipt in favour of Dattatraya surrendering pos-session of the said land to Dattatraya. Thereafter, on 7-12-1964 by a registered partition deed between Prabhawatibai wife of Dattatraya and her husband, the said Dattatraya, the said land came to the share of the said Prabhawatibai. Whether Prabhawatibai was put in separate possession of the land pursuant to the deed of partition or not is a question in disp...
Rijhumal Valiram and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR491(Bom)
Mody, Actg. C.J.1. Originally there were two reference, one concerning Rijhumal Valiram and the other concerning Hiranand Valiram. Each of the two references conceded the income-tax assessment years 1948-49 to 1951-52. Facts and rival contentions concerning each of the four years in the matter of both the reference were identical or at least closely similar and the two reference were therefore, ordered to be consolidated. Rijhumal and Hiranand were partners in certain three mill partnership in each of which partnership each of them had a four annas share. Both of them were also partners in a fourth partnership the same being Messrs. Valiram Sons, in which there were thirteen partners, Rijhumal and Hiranand each having a four annas share therein. The main question which has arisen in whether the share of profits received by each of them from the three mill partnerships was liable to be included in their individual assessments or was, as contended by them, held by them only as representi...
Shri Kashinath Laxman Waghmare, Vs. Shri Ganpat Tukaram Kashmire (Dece ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR233; 2003(4)BomCR431; 2003(3)MhLj229
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Petition is by persons claiming to be the heirs of the deceased tenant one Maniram Waghmare challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which that Tribunal has declared the Respondents to be the tenant of the land in question. The land in question is Survey No. 49 admeasuring 5 H. 20 Gunthas situate within the Nashik Municipal limits. The present proceedings were initiated by the Respondents under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act', for a declaration that they were the tenants of the land in question. They claimed that they are the legal heirs of one Mhalsabai and the original tenant Maniram. Mhalsabai and Maniram were admittedly not married to each other. They claimed tenancy over the claim to the said tenancy by the Petitions who are legal heirs of Maniram through the lawfully wedded wife.2. Earlier Mhalsabai had filed a civil suit claiming that she had succee...
Kurban S/O. Kasimali Kazi Vs. Tasduq Ahmedali S/O. Kasimali Kazi and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR79; 2007(3)BomCR613; 2007(4)MhLj486
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. R.R.Shaikh, for the petitioner, learned Counsel Mr.S.S.Kazi, for respondent No. 1 and learned AGP Mr. Kishor Patil, for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. Rule, returnable forth with. Rule is heard finally with the consent of the parties.3. A resume of relevant facts would suffice. The petitioner was defendant No. 3 in Special Civil Suit No. 7/1993 filed by the respondent No. 1 in this petition. Special Civil Suit No. 7/1993, for recovery of Rs. 49,264.33, was decreed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Latur by the Judgment and Decree dated June 25th, 1998 against the original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to 7 in the suit. This money decree, is put into execution by the respondent No. 1/original plaintiff by filing Special Darkhast No. 46/2003. The respondent No. 1/Decree holder, filed an application Exhibit 24 in Special Darkhast No. 46/2003 seeking attachment of the land survey No. 329/H and sale of the suit property by auction, for ...
B.P.Plc (Formerly B.P.Amoco Plc) a Company Incorporated in United King ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR79; [2003]113CompCas182(Bom); 2002(3)MhLj402
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. By this Appeal both the Appellants herein are challenging the order dated 5th September, 2001 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.37 of 2001. Both the Appellants in this Appeal are public limited companies incorporated in the United Kingdom. Burma Castrol Plc is also a public limited company incorporated in United Kingdom. It appears that pursuant to an offer by Appellant No.1 viz. Burma Castrol Plc became its wholly owned subsidiary. Burma Castrol Plc has a subsidiary viz. Burma Castrol Holdings Ltd. which in turn has a subsidiary viz. Castrol Limited. The said Castrol Limited is Appellant No.2 in this Appeal. The Appellant No.2 Castrol Limited has a subsidiary company viz. Castrol India Ltd. with 51% share holding. Castrol India Ltd. is also a public limited company which is incorporated in India. The Equity shares of Castrol India Ltd. are listed on the Stock Exchange of Bombay and are also permitted to be traded on the National S...
Rangnath Pandharinath Gosavi (Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR34
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated december 12, 1985 in Revision No. 1 MRT-NS-10/83. The land in question is Gat No. 1 and 79 situated at Nigadi, Tahsil Koregaon. The Petitioners claim to be landlord in respect of the suit land, whereas, the Respondents are the tenants thereof. Since the Respondents were in occupation of the suit land as tenants on the tillers day, the Respondents became deemed purchaser. In that backdrop, the Authority proceeded to fix the purchase price in respect of the suit lands. However, the purchase price was not paid by the Respondents tenants inspite of repeated reminders sent by the Petitioners. Having regard to the continuous representations made by the Petitioners, the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Koregaon, proceeded to issue following communication to the Petitioners on 3rd August 197...
Shri Narhari Balku Kavade (Since Deceased, Through His Heirs Shankar N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: AIR2004Bom342; 2004(6)BomCR414; 2004(3)MhLj782
Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 4th July 1984 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, below application Exh.1 in C-Application No. 60 of 1984.2. The Petitioners are the legal representatives of the original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1389 of 1978 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, against the Respondents. The said suit initially came to be decreed ex-parte on 29th July 1980. Thereafter in Writ Petition No. 3293 of 1981 an order of remand was passed by setting aside the decree passed on 29th July, 19S0. After the remand, a decree for possession was passed in favour of the original Plaintiff on 5th July 1984 which has admittedly attained finality. On 23rd March, 1984, the Petitioners made an application before the trial Court pointing out that in the Judgment, suit property has been wrongly described as Survey No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »