Mumbai Court July 1970 Judgments
Mahadeo Keshav Lingarkar and anr. Vs. Shamrao Balwant Kesarker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom100; (1971)73BOMLR454; ILR1972Bom376
1. The second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent to obtain possession of western half share out of house No. 611 situated at Vadgaon in Ichalkaranji Taluka. According to the plaintiff, the house originally belonged to one Tatoba Laxman Pies. On March 14, 1958, Tatoba sold his undivided half share in the house to defendant No. 1. The defendants were, however, in possession of the entire house as tenants, since 1953. On March 8, 1960, Tatoba sold the remaining half to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed. The defendants were not willing to make an actual petition of the house. The plaintiff, therefore prayed in the suit for an equitable partition of the house and possession of the western half of the house. The defendants resisted the suit contending that on March 8, 1960, Tatoba had no saleable interest in the suit property; hence, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. They further alleged that on January 24, 1958, Tatoba had entered into an agreement with th...
Tag this Judgment!Jalan Trading Co. Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom196; (1970)72BOMLR736; 1971MhLJ712
1. This is a petitioner's appeal against the summary dismissal of their writ petition by Mr. Justice Kantawala. A part of a certain land belonging to the petitioners was being acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The land admeasures 3,118.63 square yards and is situated at Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, Bombay. The notification under Section 4 was published on 27th February 1964 and the notification under Section 6 on 20th May 1965. Both the notifications stated the purpose of the acquisition 'for the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the construction of a primary school.' Soon after the notification under Section 6 the petition was filed on 15th July 1965 and it raises substantially one ground of attack against the acquisition proceedings. It is that ground which is also being pressed before us. The ground is that the requirements of Section 90 and 91 have not been fulfilled by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for whom the acquisition was und...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Balwant Kulkarni Vs. Chahala Bhikha Rajput
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR537; 1971MhLJ798
Wagle, J.1. The point that arises in this petition is whether the amendment effected in Section 82M of the Bombay Tenancy Act by Maharashtra Act No. XXXI of 1965 is retrospective in effect. The point arises upon the decisions of the three forums, the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal who gave a declaration that the tenant's purchase is not ineffective. The facts which led to this litigation are the following :The land in dispute was declared to be purchased by opponent No. 1 on August 6, 1959, by an order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The purchase price was agreed to be Rs. 3,800 payable in 11 instalments and the first instalment of Rs. 521 was to be paid on January 15, 1960. That instalment was not paid but Rs. 400 were paid upto April 20,1962.2. Thereafter on June 15, 1963, an application was made by the present petitioner for a declaration that the purchase made by the tenant, opponent No. 1, has become ineffective in view of the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Suhas Manohar Pande Vs. Manohar Shamrao Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom183; ILR1971Bom815
Padhye, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance filed by the appellant Suhas alias Ambadas against the respondent Manohar on the allegation that he is the son of the respondent Manohar and is entitled to be maintained by him. According to the plaintiff-appellant he was born on 30th October 1955. The suit has been filed on the 6th of January 1959. In this suit the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he is entitled to maintenance and claimed a decree for maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month or such other amount as the Court may fix from the date of suit and claimed a declaration of charge on the property described in Schedule A of the plaint or sufficient part thereof for payment of such maintenance. This plaintiff alleged that his mother Taramati who is now dead was married to the defendant on 30th January 1955 and during the lawful wedlock he was born to them on 30th October 1955. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who is his father is in law under personal obligati...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Shankar Ratanlalji Khamele Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom304; 1972MhLJ710
Padhye, J. 1-13.14. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, the policy in this case was effected on the 30th of July, 1956 when the proposal was accepted by the Insurance Company and in any case not later than 4th of August. 1956 when the payment of the first premium was received by the Company's Bombay Office. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant-Corporation contends that the policy must be taken to have been effected on 22-10-1956 when the document of policy was issued by the Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Limited (Ex. P. 16). We have been referred first to the words in Section 45 itself which relate the word 'effected' to the word 'policy'. It is stated that the word 'policy' used in Section 45 means a document of policy issued formally as in Ex. P16 and since such policy in the present case has been issued on 22-10-1956 that must be taken to bethe date on which the policy has been effected. Secondly, we were referred to Section 66, Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoshankar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1970
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas284(Bom)
Padhye, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal whose suit for the recovery of the amount on an insurance policy has been dismissed by the trial court. The insurance was originally taken with the Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd., but subsequently the Life Insurance Corporation of India took over the management of all the life insurance companies including the Indian Mercantile Company Ltd., with effect from 1st September, 1956, and hence the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, is held liable for the claim. The original policy which bears the No. 36348 with the Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd. was for an amount of Rs. 50,000 on joint lives of the present plaintiff and his wife, deceased Kamalabai. Prior to the taking of the instant insurance, the plaintiff had made earlier another proposal on the joint lives of himself and his wife, Kamalabai, with the Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 30,000 on 17the April 1956. With this proposal the assured, n...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R.T. Engineering and Electronics Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR586
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Mercantile Marks Act, 1958 from the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks under Section 18(4) of that Act refusing to register the Petitioners' trade mark on the ground that the same conflicts with registered trade mark No. 213586-B as also with the mark in application No. 253772-B with both of which the Petitioners' mark was held by him to be 'deceptively similar'. The petitioners had originally applied to the Trade Marks Registry for the registration of his mark in Part A of the Register in Class 7 in respect of diesel oil engines, but subsequently the same was converted by the Petitioners into one for registration in Part B and the designation of the goods was modified so as to read 'Diesel Oil Engines' (not for land vehicles) for sale in the State of Gujarat.' The Assistant Registrar, after hearing counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, declined to accept the application and dismissed the same under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Himalayan Tile and Marble (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Francis V. Coutinho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom341; (1970)72BOMLR910
Kotval, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the third respondent to a Miscellaneous Petition in which were challenged certain proceedings for the acquisition of land.2. The three petitioners who are brothers were the owners of survey Nos. 6/3, 8/1, 9/1 and 9/2 at village Majas Mogra, Jogeshwari, Bombay admeasuring 2 acres. The Himalayan Tile and Marble (Private) Ltd., the Respondent No. 3 in the Petition are the appellant before us, They carried on the business of manufacture and sale of artificial marbles and tiles. They have a factory on the land adjoining the land of the original petitioners. Some time in 1957 or 1958 at the instance of the third respondents and for their purposes the law was set in motion for the acquisition of the petitioners' lands. On7th of January 1953 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and a separate notice thereafter was also issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, to the 1st and the 2nd petitioners. It was alleged on behalf of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotabhai Purushottam Patel, Beedi Manufacturers of Bhandara and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1970
Reported in: (1972)ILLJ130Bom
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. These are ten petitions filed by various types of persons connected with the beedi industry who could be described in the language of the impugned Act as principal employers, contractors and employees. For the various reasons detailed in the petitions, all of them seek a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from giving effect to the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (No. 32 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and further seek a declaration that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are void, ineffective and beyond the legislative competence of the Legislature and interfering unreasonably with the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 2. Out of these petitioners the petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 391, 392, 393 of 1969, No. 409 of 1968, and Nos. 451 and 453 of 1969, as also those in Special Civil Applications Nos. 513 and 514 of 1969 are the beedi manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotabhai Purushottam Patel and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra by ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom244; 1971LabIC1080; 1971MhLJ413
Deshmukh, J.1. These are tea petitions filed by various types of persons connected with the beedi industry who could be described in the language of the impugned Act as principal employers, contractors and employees. For the various reasons detailed in the petitions, all of themseek a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from giving effect to the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (No. 32 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and further seek a declaration that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are void, ineffective and beyond the legislative compe tense of the Legislature and interfering unreasonably with fundamental rights of the petitioners.2. Out of these petitioners, the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 391. 392, 393 of 1969, No. 409 of 1968, and Nos. 451 and 453 of 1969, as also those in Special Civil Applications Nos. 513 and 514 of 1069 are the beedi manufacturers who cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »