Mumbai Court October 1970 Judgments
The German Democratic Republic Vs. the Dynamic Industrial Undertaking ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom27; (1971)73BOMLR183; ILR1972Bom731; 1971MhLJ482
Moody, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Order of Vimadalal, J. dt. 18th September 1970 passed by him on the Notice of Motion dated 14th August 1970 dismissing the Notice of Motion.2. The suit in which the Notice of Motion was taken out was filed on 5th June 1969. The plaintiffs are a company carrying on business in Fertilizers. There are three defendants to the suit. It is stated in the plaint that the first defendant is a body corporate controlled by and/or is a department of the second defendant. The second defendant is the German Democratic Republic. The third defendant is a Bank and is not directly concerned in the Notice of Motion. The plaintiffs entered into two contracts in writing with the first defendant for sale and supply of certain goods as more particularly mentioned in the two contracts. It is stated in the plaint, as also in the main contracts, that the same were within the frame work of the Trade Agreement dated 18th December 1959 between the Government of the 2nd de...
Tag this Judgment!Siku Industries and Ors. Vs. Smt. C. D'Souza and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1322; 1971MhLJ172
Padhye, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the criminal complaints Nos. 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, all of 1969 and/or criminal proceedings pending before the 23rd Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay by an appropriate writ, order or direction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution and/or Under Section 561-A and/or Under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The criminal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate at Bombay which are sought to be quashed arise out of five complaints lodged by the Opponent No. 1 against the present petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business under the name of Messrs. Siku Industries, Industrial Estate, Kamptee Road, Nagpur and the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the petitioner No. 1. The Opponent No. 1 is an Inspector in the Office of th...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Kalidas Mehta Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR391
Chitale, J.1. Criminal Revision Application No. 687 of 1970 is preferred by accused No. 1 Jayantilal Kalidas Mehta, and accused No. 2, Bharatkumar Jayantilal, against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Greater Bombay, on June 30, 1970, pro proceeding to frame charges against the two accused.2. On March 27, 1968, the Assistant Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Bombay, lodged the complaint, out of which this revision application arises, in the Court of the Magistrate mentioned above against the two accused and one more person, alleging offences under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 417, Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on July 6, 1968, another complaint was filed against the same persons by the Director of Enforcement alleging offences under Sections 23 and 23B of the Foreign...
Tag this Judgment!Bapusaheb Bhausaheb Patil and anr. Vs. Gangabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom16; (1971)73BOMLR407
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur. The suit was for the recovery of possession of some agricultural lands and a house in village Shrati in Kolhapur District. The lands are about 35 acres in extent and are assessed to land revenue of Rs. 211-5-9.2. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are the daughters of one Appa alias Jingonda and their mother's name was Hirabai. Appa was the only son of one Devgonda. Devgonda had a brother named Jingonda, who appears to have been deaf and dumb. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are the grand-sons of this Jingonda, being the sons of Nemgonda alias Balgonda.3. Jingonda died sometime before Devgonda leaving behind him his son, Nemgonda alias Balgonda. In about 1902 Devgonda and his son Appa went on a pilgrimage. When they were on the pilgrimage Devgonda died first in 1902 and Appa soon thereafter. So, Devgonda's branch in 1902 consisted of Appa's widow Hiraba...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuramal Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward, Akola, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR747(Bom); 1971MhLJ183
Padhye, J.1. A few facts are necessary to appreciate the point involved in this case. The respondent No. 5 was assessed to income-tax and his liability had been fixed at Rs. 86,731.02. The petitioner owed some amount to the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 filed a special civil suit being No. 5 of 1964 against the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs. 1,15,000 from him. During the pendency of this suit, the Income-tax Officer came to know about this suit and on August 19, 1964, issued a notice to the petitioner directing him not to pay the amount due from him to the respondent No. 5 but to pay the same to the Income-tax Officer. On December 31, 1964, another notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer. On December 31, 1964, another notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the petitioner requiring him to appear before him on January 30, 1965. The suit, however, ended in a consent decree for an amount of Rs. 45,000 on June 28, 1965. The petitioner, who was liable under the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Hasham Ismail Mamsa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom350; (1972)74BOMLR683; 1972MhLJ941
Chitale, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Vaidya, J. in Appeal from Order No. 405 of 1969 reversing the order of the trial Court holding that the suit in question fell under S. 6(iv)(a) of the Court - fees Act, and it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the valuation of the subject - matter of the suit being over Rs. 25,000/-.2. In the opinion of Vaidya, J., the suit was essentially a suit for accounts and it fell under S. 6(iv)(I) of the Court - fees Act. The relevant prayers in the prayer clause of the plaint read thus :- (p. 93/p.bk)(a) That the defendants may be ordered and decreed to render to the plaintiff the account of the aforesaid payments from time to time made to the defendants for property taxes of the plaintiff's said immovable properties and on taking up such account to pay to the plaintiff such amount as may be found due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. (b) That it may be declared that the amount of property taxes for which the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Kesu Khuspe Vs. Sundrabai Mugutrao Phadatare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1970
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR217; 1978MhLJ289
Aggarwal, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The learned Assistant Judge, Satara, by his judgment and decree dated August 18, 1970, allowed the defendants' appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. At all times material, the plaintiff was the tenant of Sundrabai, the original defendant No. 1, in respect of nine pieces of agricultural lands within the limits of village Nidhal, Taluka Khatav, District Satara. Sundrabai was a widow-landlady. She died after the suit was dismissed and her heirs prosecuted the civil appeal. Defendant No. 2, a relative of Sundrabai, falsely claimed that he was cultivating the suit-lands on behalf of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 also is one of the heirs of defendant No. 1 in the civil appeal. Defendant No. 3 has no part to play in the present litigation, but he is also one of the heirs of Sundrabai. The plaintiff's, case is that he has been illegally dispossessed of the suit-lands on M...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Mani J. Desai Vs. Gayson and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR394
Bhasme, J.1. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 41, Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for ejecting the respondent, a private limited company, from the premises on the ground that the licence granted by her was revoked. The Court had rejected that application and by this petition the order of rejection is challenged as erroneous in law.2. It appears that the parties have been litigating for quite some time. The facts disclose that on July 10, 1964 the petitioner put the respondents in possession of office premises consisting of two cabins. An agreement styled as Leave & Licence was executed between the parties. It was for a period of 11 (eleven) months. On June 9, 1965 another agreement in the same form amounting to the renewal of the earlier licence was also executed. On April 9, 1966 the petitioner by a notice revoked the licence. It is her case that in the month of May 1966 the respondents were given one month's time to vacate the suit premises. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›