Mumbai Court September 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.
Gangadhar Revappa Umbaranikar Vs. Shankar Vithoba Gholasgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR461; 1971MhLJ1009
Nain, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment dated July 31, 1965 of the learned District Judge, Sholapur, It arises out of the sale of a house belonging to an insolvent. One Ramchandra Pralhad Naik was adjudged an insolvent in Insolvency No. 24 of 1954 and respondent No. 3 was appointed Receiver in Insolvency. At an auction sale of the house of the insolvent on June 14, 1964 the property was knocked down to the appellant in this appeal. Respondents No. I and 2 are two of the creditors of the insolvent who objected to the sale in favour of the appellant and applied to the Insolvency Court for the sale being set aside. The Insolvency Court dismissed their application as time barred. They appealed to the District Court at Sholapur. On appeal the District Court set aside this sale in favour of the appellant and on December 5, 1965 at a fresh auction, the property was knocked down to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 was added as a party respondent after this appeal was file...
Shrirang Ganapati Pandit Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom242; ILR1971Bom1006
Vaidya, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of Rr. 1 [N. B. 1 (C) 2] 2, 4 (c) and (d) of the Rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra for admission to Government Medical Colleges is challenged by the petitioner, who sought admission in B. J. Medical College in Poona and was refused admission following the said rules.2.The rules are framed by the Government for admission to all the Government Medical Colleges in the State for the academic year 1970 - 71. The rules are annexed to the petition as Exhibit A. Rule 1 in substance, lays down that a candidate for admission must submit an application in writing upon a prescribed form to the authorities mentioned therein. The students of the different Universities are directed to forward applications to the authority mentioned against the University concerned as follows :Authority to whom application should be forwarded. The Dean, Grant Medical College, Byculla, Bombay 8. The Dean, B. J. Medical ...
New India Fisheries Ltd. Vs. P.M. Mehra, Income-tax Officer, Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR765(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The short question raised by the petitioners here relates to the proper construction of the expression 'any profits and gains derived from a ship' occurring in section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the question arises thus : The petitioner-company is a public joint-stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and its main object is to carry on business of deep sea fishing. It appears that for the purpose of that business the petitioner-company obtained as many as 8 trawlers from a Japanese concern which could be used for deep sea fishing and it actually used these 8 trawlers for catching fish in deep sea and there is no dispute that because of such user of the said trawlers, the total tonnage of fish caught by the petitioner-company, since these 8 trawlers were utilised by it for the purpose of this business in the accounting years ending, 31st March, 1968, and 31st March, 1969, being the relevant previous years for the assessment years 1968...
Caitan D' Souza and Ors. Vs. Jerbai S.C. Dinshaw and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom117; (1971)73BOMLR418; ILR1971Bom1467; 1971MhLJ974
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the Rent Act (Bombay Act No. 57 of 1947) proceedings instituted by the landlord - respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the original petitioner - tenant, since deceased. Possession of the premises from the tenant was sought to be obtained on the ground that the tenant's wife was convicted for using the premises for immoral and illegal purposes as contemplated in Section 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act. This suit was decreed by the trial Judge on 4-2-1966 in RAE Suit No. 4770 of 1962 and the appeal by the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 27-6-1966.2. It appears that the tenant has been occupying the premises in dispute for about 35 years before the institution of the proceedings. The tenant's wife was admittedly convicted for offence under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act on 19-7-1962. Details of the circumstances under which she was tried and convicted are not...
Kamal Agency and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom332; (1970)72BOMLR928
Mody, Ag. C.J.1. This is a petition by prayer (b) of which the petitioners pray for a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State of Maharashtra ordering the respondents to forbear from doing any act or thing so as to prevent, obstruct or interfere in any manner with the free and unrestricted sale and distribution of and/or leadings in lottery tickets of lotteries organised or conducted by any other State in India by the Petitioners.2. The question raised by this Petition is : Whether a State Government has power or authority to prevent sale of or dealings in tickets of State Lotteries organised and conducted by any other State in the Union of India in so far as such sales or dealings take place within the territory of the State of Maharashtra, which is the respondent in this Petition.3. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, of which the second petitioner is a partner. The first Petitioner has been appointed an Agent by each of the States of ...
Syed Chunnarshah Syed Nadarshah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR602; 1971MhLJ237
Bhole, J.1. A question, whether a person against whom proceedings for Prevention of Offences have boon started can be ordered to execute a bail bond for appearance in those proceedings or cannot be ordered, arises in this application, The question arises in the following circumstances. Proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, were initiated against the applicant before the Court of the City Magistrate, Nagpur, in the year 1967. A summons was issued against the applicant but was unserved, later on a warrant was issued and although it was not served on a couple of occasions, it was ultimately served. The applicant was, therefore, produced before the Court and was asked to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 3,000 with a surety of like amount for appearance on the dates of hearing during the course of the proceedings. On one or two occasions he appeared but was absent later on. Therefore, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It was unserved. The bond, which he had exec...
Kamal Agency Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR928a
N.A. Mody, Actg. C.J.1. This is a petition by prayer (b) of which the petitioners pray for a Writ of Mandamus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India against the State of Maharashtra ordering the respondents to forbear from doing any act or thing so as to prevent, obstruct or interfere in any manner with the free and unrestricted sale arid distribution of and/or dealings in lottery tickets of lotteries organised or conducted by any other State in India by the petitioners.2. The question raised by this petition is : Whether a State Government has power or authority to prevent sale of or dealings in tickets of State Lotteries organised and conducted by any other State in the Union of India in so far as such sales or dealings take place within the territory of the State of Maharashtra, which is the respondent in this petition.3. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, of which the second petitioner is a partner, The first petitioner has been appointed an Agent by each of the ...
Charanjeet Singh Sial Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR599; 1971MhLJ311
Bhole, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in. a criminal revision application dismissing his application, the original complainant has coma hero in revision, A complaint was filed by him against the non-applicant under Sections 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. His complaint is that he was a duly constituted attorney of a partnership firm M/s. Sial Ghogri Group with its head office at Nagpur. This firm runs a colliery within the district of Chhindwara in Madhya Pradesh. The non-applicant was the general manager and later on was a duly constituted attorney of the said firm. He was, therefore, representing the firm in all its affairs. The grievance of the complainant is that the non-applicant received a bearer cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,000 issued by M/s. S.D. Sethia and Company, Private, Ltd., Bombay, in the name of the firm Sial Ghogri Group. The non-applicant is said to have cashed that cheque at Bombay but did not credit it in the account of t...
Gangansingh Dumarshing and ors. Vs. S. Taki Bilgrami, Industrial Tribu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1970
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ193Bom
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 claim to be employees of the third respondent, and petitioner No. 3 is a registered trade union of the workmen of the third respondent. The petition is in respect of an award made by the second respondent, and a copy of this award is to be found as part of Ex. A (collectively) to the petition. The award is in fact a part of the award, and the second respondent came to make this part award under circumstances which will be clear in the latter part of this judgment. 2. The award Part-I, hereinafter referred to as the award, was made in respect of three different references, being References (IT) Nos. 14, 77 and 338 of 1963. Reference No. 14 of 1963 was made on 1-10-1963 to the Tribunal consisting of the 1st respondent. It related to the disputes arising out of demands made by the company in schedule A, as also demands made by the union in schedule B annexed to the order of reference. It may be men...
Vishnu Ganu Patil Vs. Maruti Santu Kurade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR555; 1971MhLJ857
Deshpande, J.1. This case raises a short question as to the true interpretation of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 82G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The petitioner is admittedly tenant of Survey No. 149/3 situate at village Ispurli. The respondents are the landlords. As the petitioner was found to have been in possession of this land as tenant on April 1, 1957 the Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Karvir, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, proceeded to act under Section 32G of the Act, Individual notice was served on the tenant. He was called upon to appear before the said Tribunal on March 22, 1963. The tenant, however, remained absent. On May 7,1968 the Tribunal declared that the purchases by the tenant of this land had become ineffective in terms of Section 32G (3). This order was communicated to the tenant on June 6,1963 as required under the proviso. On July 4, 1963 the tenant made an application requesti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›