Mumbai Court October 1971 Judgments
Lalshankar Mulji Joshi Vs. Kantilal Mohanlal Parikh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1971
Reported in: 1972MhLJ459
ORDER1. This is a landlord's petition challenging the order passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Poona. the respondent is a tenant of the suit premises belonging to the petitioner at a rent of Rs. 17/- per month. Because he was in arrears of rent for more than six months, therefore the petitioner had to serve a notice on the respondent. The notice was dated 17-8-1965 and the respondent was asked to quit by 30-9-1965. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 176 - 90p. As the notice was not complied, the suit was filed claiming arrears of rent and possession on three grounds, the first being arrears of rent for more than six months, the second was that the suit premises were required for personal use by the landlord and the third was that the respondent - tenant was keeping the premises locked and had not been using them.2. The trial Court framed a number of issues on the pleadings of the parties and held that the petitioner had established that the respondent was a defaulter for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Rangnath Sakharam Pawar Vs. Dnyandeo Baburao Kakade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR449; 1972MhLJ673
S.P. Kotwal, C.J.1. This criminal revision application has been referred to a Full Bench because it involves the decision of an important and an oft recurring question as to the proper interpretation of Section 88 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. Ill of 1959).2. Rangnath Sakharam Pawar the applicant along with Baban Bhagaji Gorane opponent No. 2 were charged with offences under Sections 323, 447, 504 and 506 (Part (1)) all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur in Criminal Case No. 1135 of 1968. The Magistrate decided to issue summons only under Section 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Before evidence on behalf of the complainant could be recorded, however, a preliminary objection came to be raised on behalf of the accused. The objection was that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, had no jurisdiction to try those offences because they were offences which were mentioned in...
Tag this Judgment!Pandhari Ramji Timade and ors. Vs. Jagdamba Devi Deosthan, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom123; ILR1972Bom1074; 1971MhLJ1045
ORDER1. This Petition Challenges the order dated 17-6-1970 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revenue revision No. Ten-A-478 of 1969. The facts leading to this petition are briefly these: The respondent No. 1 Jagdamba Devi Deosthan is the landholder of field Survey No. 6, area 7.17 acres, assessment Rs. 17/- and Survey No. 1/3, area 1.17 acres, assessment Rs. 3-31, both situated at mouza Kuria, tahsil Hinganghat, district Wardha. the petitioners claim to be the tenants of the aforesaid fields. According to the petitioner, the fields were leased out to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title in the year 1955-56 and they continued to be in possession of those fields in the year 1956-57 and 1957-58. The respondent No. 1 however, challenged the claim of the petitioners of their being tenants of the said fields. The petitioners, therefore, filed on 3-4-1961 an application purporting to be under Section 100 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Vidarbha Region) ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Narayan Upadhyay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR299; 1972MhLJ583
S.K. Desai, J.1. His Lordship after considering the evidence in the case, proceeded. These then are the various circumstances that lend support to and corroborate the three extra-judicial confessions which, it must be conceded, is certainly the main evidence led by the prosecution against the appellant. A number of submissions were made by the learned advocate Mr. Abhale appearing for the appellant dining the course of the arguments, and he submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient for the conviction of the appellant. He submitted : (i) that the evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confessions has always been regarded to be weak evidence, (ii) that the evidence furnished by an extra-judicial confession maybe used only as a corroborative piece of evidence and not as the main evidence on which the conviction of an accused person can be based, and (iii) that even if the conviction may be based on the extra-judicial confessions, the extra-judicial confessions were required...
Tag this Judgment!Lokumal Kishinchand Manghnani Vs. Vivek Arya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR290; 1972MhLJ576
Kamat, J.1. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Application challenging the legality and correctness of an order, dated September 20, 1971 passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Case No. 162/S of 1971 pending before me.2. The first petitioner Lokumal and the second petitioner Laxmibai are the parents and the third petitioner Kishinchand is the paternal grandfather of a young lady by name Kamini, who is now aged about nineteen years. The first respondent Ellis is a handsome young man, aged about twenty one years and by birth, he is a Jew. Kamini and Ellis were studying in Hill Grange High School, Bombay and during the years 1966 to 1968, they were in the same class. Being classmates they became acquainted with each other and their acquaintance soon developed into close friendship. Their mutual attraction became so strong that they eventually decided to marry and live together...
Tag this Judgment!Shanta Agarwal Vs. Baldota Bros
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1971
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR156
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs together with interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem from the dates of the respective advances made to the defendants.2. The plaintiffs' case is that, in January 1964, an agreement was arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants under which the plaintiffs agreed to advance to the defendants in cash large amounts of moneys which were undisclosed to the income-tax authorities, with interest at 1 per cent, per mensem, in respect of which the defendants agreed to execute promissory notes in the names of the plaintiffs or in other names benami for the plaintiffs, and were also, to renew the said loans from time to time on condition of issuing fresh promissory notes in the same names or in the names of different benamidars for the plaintiffs, as may be required by plaintiff No. 1 on behalf of the plaintiffs. In paras. 4 to 8 of the plaint the plaintiffs have se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›