Mumbai Court December 1971 Judgments
D.S. Rame Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ213Bom
Vaidya, J.1. By this petition the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired under Rule 161 (c-1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, challenges on several grounds the validity of the order of compulsory retirement passed against him in May, 1971. It is not necessary to repeat the grounds which are similar to the grounds, which were urged challenging the validity of the said Rule 161 (c-1) and were overruled by us in Special Civil Application No. 1488 of 1971, decided on November 22, 1971. 2. To appreciate the additional grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner in the instant case, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. The petitioner was born on August 22, 1915. He was initially recruited as a range forest officer in 1942 in the forest department of the then Bombay State. He served as such till 1959, when he was promoted to Maharashtra Forest Service Class II. He was further promoted to Class I of that service in 1964, and was working as divisional forest officer, Ghod Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Premchand Shah and Anr. Vs. Engineers' Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas294(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with an alternative prayer that the company may be ordered to be wound up by the under the directions of this court. 2. Respondent No. 1, Engineers' Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), is a private limited company and its issued, subscribed and paid-up capital consists of Rs. 2,04,000 divided into 2,040 ordinary (equity) fully paid-up shares of Rs. 100 each. The petitioners held 1,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each, i.e., about 49.02% of the total paid-up shares capital of the company. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the other shareholders of the company holding in all 1,040 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each. Their holding comes to a little over 50% of the total paid up share capital of the company. 3. On March 20, 1969, this petition was admitted in respect of prayers except those relating to winding up, namely, pr...
Tag this Judgment!Chindhu Gotu Sonar Vs. Vana Munji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom94; (1972)74BOMLR691; ILR1973Bom249; 1973MhLJ113
1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated April 2, 1968, passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, setting aside the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satana, dismissing with costs and suit filed by the plaintiff, by his judgment dated December 18, 1965.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit in the Court of the Civil judge, Junior Division, Satana, on June 19, 1964, praying for a declaration that the order of the Deputy Collector dated April 24, 1964, in pursuance of which the Mamlatdar, taluka Baglan, directed the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit land to the defendant, was ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the defendant from obtaining possession of the suit land on the strength of the said order. The suit land is Survey No. 186 situate in village Vanoli. The land originally belonged to one Govind Keshav, who is not a party to the suit. The defendant was cultivating the land as a tenant protected under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Kisanrao Tamhane and ors. Vs. Trivenibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom152; (1972)74BOMLR540; ILR1973Bom126; 1972MhLJ693
Wagle, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge as he felt that a question of law of some importance was involved in this appeal.2. Regular Civil Suit No. 488 of 1966 was filed in the Court of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, by the present respondent seeking possession of property situated within the municipal limits of the Poona Corporation. She sought possession of Survey No. 162 Hissa Nos. 1 and 2 admeasuring 8 acres 26 gunthas which was in the possession of one Kisan from about 1935 as tenant. On May 5, 1955 Kisan died leaving behind him his widow, the appellant No.1 and two sons Vithal and Raghunath, appellants Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff claimed possession on the ground that the tenancy was terminated by her by Exh. 117 dated September 13, 1965 effective from March 31, 1966. It was the case of the plaintiff that since the lands were situated within the limits of Poona Municipal Corporation and were within the Industrial Zone,...
Tag this Judgment!Shevantibai Dattatraya Mane and anr. Vs. Vasant Gopal Deshmukh and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom97; (1972)74BOMLR701; 1972MhLJ953
ORDER1. This is an application by the petitioners, who had filed a suit against the respondent-tenants for possession of the suit premises on certain grounds. The respondent-tenants are full brothers. According to the petitioners, the respondents had taken the suit premises on rental basis and agreed to pay rent of Rs. 30/- per month. The tenants have paid the rent till the end of November, 1963 and remained in arrears for the period from December, 1963 to the end of January 1965. The petitioners by a quit notice determined the tenancy and filed a suit on 11-3-1965 claiming the possession, inter alia, on the ground that the tenants had remained in arrears for more than six months, despite the notice of demand served on them under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act.2. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement only to point out that he has separated from defendant No.2 long ago to the knowledge of the petitioners. He has no interest in the suit premises and the petitioners had unnecessarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Bhaskar Sheorey Vs. Saral Madhukar Sheorey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom55; (1972)74BOMLR496; ILR1973Bom113; 1972MhLJ762
1. This is an appeal by the original petitioner against the judgment and order dated 14th October 1968 of a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing his petition for divorce under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hindu Marriage Act'). The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife.2. The brief facts leading to this litigation are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 22nd February 1961 in Nagpur according to Hindu Vedic rites. On 26th June 1964 the respondent filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur, a petition for judicial separation inter alia under Section 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. On 12th January 1965 a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the respondent. There are fortunately no children of the marriage.3. Thereafter in 1968 the petitioner filed in the Bombay City Civil Court the petition from whic...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Fathubhai Tamboli Vs. Bansilal Chunilal Munot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR39
Vaidya, J.1. In this matter Vakalatnama is filed on behalf of the appellant and the question is whether it is in proper form. The question arises because the appellant has authorised a firm of advocates practising in the name and style of Messrs R.G. Samant and Co. to appear, plead, act and to compromise on his behalf in the matter filed in the High Court. The Vakalatnama is accepted and presented on November 10, 1971, for R.G. Samant and Co. by a partner Mr. C.G. Parulekar. The question has arisen because although warrants of authority are filed on the Original Side and such Vakalatnamas are also filed on the Appellate Side on behalf of the attorneys, no such Vakalatnamas were in practice filed by advocates on the Appellate Side of this Court.2. Rule 6 of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which requires a Vakalatnama to be filed runs as follows:6(i) Where an Advocate is required to file any matter or proceeding on behalf of his client, he shall not do so,...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gordhandas and Co. Vs. D. Arvind Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1971
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR119
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover a certain money claim arising out of an agreement arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 acting on behalf of defendants No. 1 in or about the middle of October 1959 relating to the export of a certain quantity of art silk fabrics and the import entitlement relating thereto. It is not necessary for me to enter into the complicated facts of the present ease for the purpose of this order. In para. 6 of the plaint the plaintiffs have averred that, in the matter of the skid contract, defendants No. 2 acted on behalf of defendants No. 1, and the terms of that contract as alleged by the plaintiffs are also set out in the same paragraph of the plaint. Defendants No. 1 have, in para. 5 of their Written Statement which is in reply to para. 6 of the plaint, started with a comprehensive denial in the following words:With reference to para 6 of the plaint, these defendants deny each and every statement of submission a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›