Mumbai Court March 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.
Raja Bahadur Motilal (Bombay) Mills Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom1; (1971)73BOMLR523; ILR1972Bom552
Mody, J. 1. This is appeal against the Order dated 2-11-1970 made by Mr. Justice Nain as Chamber Judge dismissing the appellant's Chamber Summons dated 12th October 1970, the reliefs prayed whereby we will set out a little later.2. The appellant which was the owner of an immovable property in Bombay, mortgaged that property in favour of the first respondent by an Indenture of Mortgage dated 20th April 1946. The second respondent, who has at all material times been a director of the appellant Mills guaranteed the said mortgage debt. Thereafter, the appellant created a second mortgage on that property in favour of the third respondent. The first respondent thereafter filed a suit, begin suit No. 454 of 1950 in this court for realising the debt and the security under the said Mortgage making the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as defendants to that suit. On the 9th of August 1949 a Preliminary Mortgage Decree was passed and thereafter on the 28th of June 1950 a Decree absolute for ...
Jivanlal Damodardas Wani Vs. Narayan Ukha Sali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom148; (1971)73BOMLR814; 1972MhLJ64; MANU/MH/0066/1972
ORDER1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Civil Judge (J. D) Shahada, dated 8th October 1969, granting an application by the defendant that on Kamalabai be added as a party to this suit.2. That facts of the plaintiff's case are that the property in question originally belonged to one Dwarkadas Vithaldas, from whom the plaintiff purchased it by a registered sale deed dated 30th March 1964. The defendant was a tenant occupying a part of the ground floor of the said property and the plaintiff by his notice to quit dated 28th September 1967 terminated that tenancy and filed the present suit on the 3rd of January 1968 to eject the defendant. On the 14th of March 1968 the defendant filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had to title to the said property and that the owner thereof was Kamlabai the wife of the said Dwarkadas from whom the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property. The defendant thereafter on the 7th of August 1969 made...
Purnabai and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR909
Deshpande, J.1. Two lands bearing Survey Nos. 139 and 140 measuring in all 33 acres 11 gunthas of village Chandekasre belonged to Bapu and Pandu, nephew and uncle respectively. Major portions of these lands were irrigated and were in possession of one Bahiru Zagade as tenant. In the course of inquiry in the holdings of the said tenant under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act', the tenant was found to be a surplus landholder. Before, however, his surplus lands were finally delimited, both Bapu and Pandu, appeared before the Deputy Collector in response to notices under Section 20 to claim resumption of these lands under Section 19 for personal cultivation. Bapu alone claimed entire two lands, alleging that on partition with Pandu in the year 1955-56 these lands were given to Bapu and he was entitled to claim so much more area of land as would make up the total of 108 acres which is the ceiling are...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Hansraj Depar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR712; 1971MhLJ965
Vaidya, J.1. These four appeals arise out of four eases which were disposed of by a common judgment by the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazagaon as they involved common questions of facts and law relating to Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order, 1966.2. The prosecution alleged that the four accused, who are owning different shops, failed to notify or mark prices or to put up a board showing the prices of Vanaspati which they had kept for sale in their grocery shops. The defence of the accused was that they were selling hydrogenated oil and not Vanaspati. The learned Magistrate in all the four cases acquitted the accused giving them the benefit of doubt, observing:I may also point out that when, the Government fixed the price of hydrogenated oil by its notification No. SO 4203 dated 22nd November 1968 published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 7-12-1968 on page 224 part IV-K, the word used is 'vegetable oil items' and not 'Va...
Chinnubhai Chandulal Parikh Vs. Dhanyakumar Motiram Belokar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR362; 1971MhLJ597
Chandurkar, J.1. The dispute which is the subject-matter of this revision application is an offshoot of another long standing dispute between Digambaris and Swetambari sects of Jains. At Sirpur, taluq Washim, district Akola, there is a temple of Antariksha Parshwanath in which admittedly there is an idol of Devi Padmawati. It is the right to worship this deity of Devi Padmawati that gave rise to an apprehension of breach of peace and tranquillity resulting in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Washim, passing a preliminary order under Section 147(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The party No. 1 belonged to Digambaris sect of Jains, while the party No. 2 belonged to the Swetambari sect. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the contention on behalf of the party No. 1 was that the idol of Devi Padmawati in the said temple has been worshipped exclusively by Digambaris and that the party No. 2 have no right of worship of that deity. On the other hand, the party No. 2 claimed that the deity of...
Chinnubhai Chandulal Parikh and anr. Vs. Dhanyakumar Motiram Belokar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1597
ORDERChandurkar, J.1. The dispute which is the subject matter of this revision application is an off shoot of another long standing dispute between Digambari and Swetambari sects of Jain. In Sirpur, taluq Washim, District Akola, there is a temple of Autarkical Parshwanath in which admittedly there is an idol of Devi Padmawati. It is the right to worship this deity of Devi Padmawati that gave rise to an apprehension of breach of peace and tranquillity resulting in the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Washim, passing a preliminary order Under Section 147 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The party No. 1 belonged to Digambari sect of Jains, while the party No. 2 belonged to the Swetambari sect. Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate the contention on behalf of the party No. 1 was that the idol of Devi Padmawati in the said temple has been worshipped exclusively by Digambari and that the party No. 2 have no right to worship of that deity. On the other hand, the party No. 2 claimed that the deity...
Jaysing Ratilal Kotak Vs. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom197; (1971)73BOMLR885; 1972MhLJ179
1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr.N.M. Shah, Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, dated 28th January 1967 dismissing an appeal filed before him under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the same fell outside the purview of the said section and was, therefore, not maintainable. The appellant who purchased a flat on ownership basis some time in June 1966 made a representation to the Municipal Commissioner under Section 167 of the Act for reducing the amount of rateable value in respect of the said flat. The Municipal Commissioner, however, rejected that representation, and it is from that rejection that the present appellant sought to file an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes under Section 217 of the Act. The learned Chief Judge took the view that as under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of S. 217 an appeal against any amendment made in the Assessment Book under Section 167 dur...
K.K. Porbunderwalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR385(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred for our decision as under : '1. Whether in accordance with the provisions of section 16 (3) (a) (iv) the sums of Rs. 13,918 and Rs. 14,586 can be properly included in the computation of the assessee's total income of the previous years ended March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959, relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively 2. Whether in accordance with the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) the sum of Rs. 13,918 and Rs. 14,586 can be properly included in the computation of the assessee's total income of the previous years ended March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959, relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively ?' 2. These questions arise upon the following facts : K. K. Porbunderwalla, the assessee, has been assessed for the two years in question in the status of an individual. He owned four immovable properties. In September, 1947, he gifted these four properties to his wife, Khatijabai. From that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›