Mumbai Court November 1971 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.
The Sholapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR469
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. In. this reference in essence we are called upon to determine what is the true meaning of the words 'current official year' used in Sub-section (3) of Section 82 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, but the question which has been referred for our decision does not highlight that controversy and therefore we have decided to reframe the question and substitute it by the following two questions:Whether, on a true construction of Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925,(i) an alteration made in the assessment list prepared under Section 78 thereof becomes effective for any period prior to the commencement of the official year in which the. Alteration in the assessment list is made so as to entitle the Municipality to levy tax for an official year or any part thereof which has already expired?or(ii) whether the alteration becomes effective from the commencement of the official year in which it is made so as to entitle the Municipality to levy tax...
Madhav Sakharam Jondhale Vs. the Sangamner Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ330Bom; 1972MhLJ775
Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant, who was working as a Sanitary Inspector in the respondent-municipality, was dismissed from service under a resolution of its Sanitary Committee dated October 10, 1955. On March 1, 1956, he brought the present suit to challenge the order of dismissal and to recover arrears of salary, damages, etc., on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice contained in Rule 177 of the Rules of the Municipality and was therefore void and illegal. 2. The trial Court gave to the plaintiff a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful. It rejected his contention that the dismissal was void and declined to grant him the declaration that he continued to be in the service of the municipality. Instead, it awarded to him a sum equivalent to a month's salary in lieu of the period of notice, in view of Rule 217 under which a municipal servant is liable to be discharged at a month's notice. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed i...
Jalna Consumers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Hiralal Girdharilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR762
Wagle, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, upholding the decision of the Rent Controller that notice is necessary before relief can be obtained by a landlord of possession of property under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. The few facts necessary for the disposal, of this point, which arises in all these matters, are the following:The Jain a Consumers' Co-operative Society purchased the property in dispute on July 21, 1961. On October 2, 1961 a notice was given by the petitioners to the respondent-tenant informing him that the petitioners had become the purchasers of the suit property and that, therefore, he should go on paying the rent to them. In this notice a claim was also made by the petitioners that as they required the property for their personal occupation, the tenant should quit.2. By his reply1 dated October 16, 1961, the respondent refused to attorn on the ground that he had rec...
Anaji Thamaji Patil Vs. Ragho Bhivraj Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom75; (1972)74BOMLR666; 1972MhLJ959
Kotval, C.J.1. After hearing counsel for both the sides it appears to us that the question which has been referred for our decision in this Reference is somewhat too widely stated and that in order to bring out the exact scope of the points to be determined in the Reference the question must be split into two questions which we have reframed as follows with the consent of counsel :(1) Where agricultural land is mortgaged by a simple mortgage and the mortgagor leases that land pending a suit by the mortgagee for sale of the mortgaged property, is the lease affected by the doctrine of lispendens contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act? (2) Can the lessee be considered to be a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in such a case?2. The facts upon which these questions arise are simple. Survey No. 86 of Village Nimon, District Nasik, belonged to one Deoji who mortgaged it to one Multanmal by way of a simple mortgage. Multanmal died a...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivbalak Gawrishankar Dube
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR561; 1972MhLJ808
Gatne, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State with a view to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palghar, District Thana, on March 18, 1970 in Criminal Case No. 363 of I960 on his file.2. The complaint in the Court below was filed by one Ratnakar Digambar Khulge, the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee at Palghar. The allegation of the complainant was that the accused, who was a resident of Navli, Taluka Palghar, was trading in grass and paddy straw and since Palghar Taluka was declared to be a market area as far back as August 12, 1960 and a Market Committee was constituted at Palghar on July 18, 1963, it was incumbent on the accused to obtain the necessary licence under Section 6(i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. It was said that he had actually obtained such a licence for the year 1967-68, but thereafter he continued to trade without obtaining the requisite licence for su...
V.A. Chedda Vs. Bambai Mazdoor Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR243; 1972MhLJ504
Vaidya, J.1. Two questions arise in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The first question is as to whether the activities carried on by an unincorporated Association in the name and style of the Bombay Grain Dealers' Association constitute it an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second question is as to whether the reference of the dispute between the office bearers of the said Association, who are the petitioners in the above petition, and the workmen of that Association could be made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners raised these points as preliminary points before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the activities of the Association constituted it an 'industry'; and though the order of reference was not happily worded, the reference was competent as a reference of the 'industrial dispute' between the petitioners and the workmen of the Association. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›