Mumbai Court August 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.
Ramcharan RamdIn Ahir Vs. Resident Deputy Collector with Rent Control ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom203; 1970MhLJ975
ORDER1. This petition raises an important question regarding the validity of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. This Order has been made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (No. XI of 1946). Section 2 of the said Act provides as under-'The State Government may by general or special order which shall extend to such areas as the State Government, may by notification direct, provide for regulating the letting and sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board, and in particular- (a) for controlling the rents for such accommodation either generally or when let to specified persons or classes of persons or in specified circumstances; (b) for preventing the eviction of tenants or sub-t...
K.B. Khatavkar Vs. S. Taki Beligrami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR570; (1971)IILLJ445Bom; 1971MhLJ753
Tarkunde, J.1. At the relevant time S. 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ran as follows : 'employee' means any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry, and includes - (a) a person employed by a contractor to do any work for him in the execution of a contract with an employer within the meaning of sub-clause (e) clause (14); (b) a person who has been dismissed or discharged from employment on account of any dispute relating to change in respect of which a notice is given or an application made under S. 42 whether before or after his dismissal or discharge ......' The clause goes on to provide that a person employed in a managerial, supervisory or technical capacity is not included in the term 'employee', but we are not concerned with that part of the clause. 2. It will be noticed that the definition of the word 'employee' quoted above is in two parts. In the main part the term as defined to mean any person employed to do any skil...
Eastern Steamship Private Ltd. Vs. Pucto Private Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR697; [1971]41CompCas43(Bom)
Nain, J.1. This is judge's summons dated 12th August, 1969, taken out by the applicants who are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252 of 1969 pending in this court for leave to continue the said suit instituted by them on 24th February, 1969, and to continue all proceedings pending in the said suit. The application is under the provisions of section 446 of the Companies Act 1 of 1956. The respondents in the judge's summons are the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit.2. When the judge's summons came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Kantawala, some judgments of this court under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) and the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920) were cited which also provide for leave to commence a suit. As there was a conflict between various decisions of this court, to which we shall refer later, by an order dated 12th January, 1970, the learned judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. This is how the matter comes up before us to-day.3. A pet...
Khobraji Jairam Masmatkar Vs. Vijaysingrao Narsingrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR595
Bhole, J.1. The two applicants and opponent No. 4 Govinda Narayan purchased different portions of land on a Gandhi in village Shebalpimpuri in the district of Yeotmal, belonging to one Vijaysingrao Narsingrao Deshmukh, Party No. I (opponent No. 1 here). They were not made parties to proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code initiated by Station Officer, Jawala, taluq Pusad, district Yeotmal. There was a dispute between Party No. I (opponent No. 1) and Party No. II (opponents Nos. 2 and 3) over the subject-matter Gadhi. Party No. I is Vijaysingrao and Parry No. II are his wives Vijayamalabai and Vimalabai. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order on September 19, 1966 and thereafter also passed another order on October 17, 1966 for attachment of the entire Gandhi including the portions purchased by the present applicants. The applicants claim to be in actual possession on the portions of the Gandhi which they purchased. Because the subject-matt...
Khobraji and anr. Vs. Vijayasingrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ996; 1971MhLJ128
ORDERBhole, J.1. The two applicants and opponent No. 4 Govinda Narayan purchased different portions of land on a Gadhi in village Shebalpimpuri in the district of Yeotmal, belonging to one Vijayasingrao Narasingrao Deshmukh, Party No. 1 (Opponent No. 1 here). They were not made parties to proceedings Under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code initiated by Station Officer, Jawala, taluq, Pusad, district Yeotmal. There was a dispute between party No. 1 (Opponent No. 1) and Party No. 2 (Opponents Nos. 2 and 3) over the subject-matter Gadhi. Party No. 1 is Vijaysingrao and Party No. II are his wives Vijayamalabai and Vimalabai. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 19-9-1966 and thereafter also passed another order on 17-10-1966 for attachment of the entire Gadhi including the portions purchased by the present applicants. The applicants claim to be in actual possession of the portions of the Gadhi which they purchased. Because the subject-matter of the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›