Mumbai Court August 1971 Judgments
Bhaurao Dagadu Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR304; 1972MhLJ604
Deshpande, J.1. This second appeal referred to this Division Bench raises a short question about the effect of the order of acquittal recorded in favour of a public servant on the departmental proceedings instituted against him on the basis of the same facts. The appellant was recruited to the armed constabulary of the then State of Bombay on or about June 20, 1940. On August 1, 1941 he was transferred, to the unarmed police force and, in due course came to be posted at Nawapur Police Station on or about May 1, 1957 as constable. In the year 1958 he was assigned the duty of detecting gambling cases. It appears that two or three cases detected by him ultimately resulted in the conviction and in one such case one Magan Bhika was tried and convicted on March 27, 1958.2. However, on April 14, 1958 on the complaint of one Limji, P.S.I. Anti-corruption Police laid a trap and the accused was caught red handed, while accepting bribe of Rs. 5 from the said Limji. After investigation he was trie...
Tag this Judgment!Baban Krishnarao Misal Vs. Narayan Yeshwant Godse and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom375; (1972)74BOMLR310; ILR1972Bom1284; 1972MhLJ560
ORDER1. The short point that arises in this petition is whether the petition for possession under Section 33 - B of the Tenancy Act made by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The petitioner was a minor when the application under Section 88 - C for exemption was made by him on September 31, 1961. The order that he was entitled to a certificate was mad eon July 31, 1963. The birth - date of the petitioner was June 12, 1945 and he attained majority on June 12, 1963. The certificate was in fact issued on August 30, 1963.2. In pursuance of the certificate the petitioner served a notice based upon Respondents 1 to 8 as required under Section 33 - B (3) of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter on May 15, 1964 the instant proceeding under Section 33 - B was initiated. On February 23, 1965 this application was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This decision of the Tenancy Aval Karkun was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector and in revision by the M. R. T. The instant ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikubai Bhima Gaidhane and anr. Vs. Khandu Daji Pagar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom101; (1972)74BOMLR698
ORDER1. The petitioner-landlord is the owner of S. No. 270/1-A-1-B admeasuring 30 gunthas assessed at 12 paise. The lands are situate in village Palse in district Nasik. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called 'the Tenancy Act') were instituted in the year 1960. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal wanted to determine the price of land to be paid by the respondent. The respondent in those proceedings gave a statement stating that he was not in possession of the land on 1-4-1957 and that he was also not a tenant of the said land at that time. In consequence of that statement the Mamlatdar by his order dated 27-10-1960 dropped the proceedings. Later on the respondent filed an appeal against this order stating that there was some misunderstanding on his part while giving the statement. While the appeal was pending before the Deputy Collector the respondent is alleged to have taken forcible possession of the suit land in the year 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaurao Dagdagu Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ153Bom
Deshpande, J.1. This second appeal referred to this Division Bench raises a short question about the effect of the order of acquittal recorded in favour of a public servant on the departmental proceedings instituted against him on the basis of the same facts. The appellant was recruited to the armed constabulary of the then State of Bombay on or about June 20, 1940. On August 1, 1941 he was transferred to the unarmed police force and in due course came to be posted at Nawapur Police Station on or about May 1, 1957 as constable. In the year 1958 he was assigned the duty of detecting gambling cases. It appears that two or three cases detected by him ultimately resulted in conviction and in one such case one Magan Bhika was tried and convicted on March 27, 1958. 2. However, on April 14, 1958 on the complaint of one Limji, P.S.I. Anti-corruption Police laid a trap and the accused was caught red-handed, while accepting bribe of Rs. 5 from the said Limji. After investigation he was tried bef...
Tag this Judgment!Sabir Ahmed Lal Mohamed Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom296; (1972)74BOMLR161; 1972CriLJ1437
Chandrachud, J.1. In Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 52 of 1971 (Bom) Vaidya, J. took the view that the power conferred by Section 17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein, 'the act') to disqualify a person for holding a driving licence cannot be exercised in cases where the contravention is of a rule relating to the mere conduct of the driver. Bhasme, J., also sitting singly, took the same view in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 1142 of 1970 (Bom).2.A similar question arose before the learned Chief Justice in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 1101 of 1970. He was inclined to a different view and therefore he has referred for our decision the question as regards the correctness of the two earlier decisions. In his referring judgment on July 16, 1971, the learned Chief Justice has expressed the opinion that the power conferred by Section 17 (1) to suspend a driving licence is exercisable even where the conviction is for the breach of a rule governing the conduct of the driver.3.Only a few facts are re...
Tag this Judgment!American Express Bakery Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR138; 1972MhLJ353
Nain, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay. It appears that the issues in the matter were tried in three stages and there are three orders dated February 28, 1961, March 15, 1962 and July 6, 1964. By the final order the appellants were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,293.76 as their contribution under Section 39 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act') with interest from the date of judgment and Rs. 50 as costs. Under Section 82 of the said Act an appeal lies to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court constituted under Section 74 of the said Act, if it involves substantial question of law.2. The appellants carry on the business of bakers. They are registered as a factory under the Factories Act, 1948. By a letter dated October 22, 1959 the Employees' State Insurance Corporation constituted under the said Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Zibla Doye Vs. Udhao Dharmaji Nikhade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom169; ILR1972Bom1000; 1972MhLJ588
ORDER1. This judgment shall govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 2 and 3 of 1970. The questions involved in these petitions relate to the construction of Section 50 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ( Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. The petitioner in both these petitions is the tenant and the respondents are the legal representatives of one Dharmaji who was the owner of Khasra No. 63/1, area 6.76 acres, and Khasra No. 63/3/, area 0.52 acre, both situated at village Pitichuwa, Tahali Warora, District Chandrapur. Petitioner Govind had filed an application on 17 - 11 1965 claiming that he was entitled to purchase both the fields which he cultivated as a tenant since the year 1964 - 65 and that he should, therefore, be declared to be the owner of these fields. This application was registered as Revenue Case No. 1/59/(14) 65-66. Landlord Dharmaji denied that the petitioner was the tenant and according to him the petitioner was a close re...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikant Pundlikrao Ganorkar Vs. the Assistant Collector, Achalpur Tah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom128; ILR1972Bom834; 1971MhLJ80
ORDER1. This petition by the landlord arises out of an application purported to have been filed under Section 36(2) read with Ss. 43(14-A) and S. 49-A(5) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. This application came to be filed before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Achalpur. In this application the petitioner had alleged that he was the owner of Survey No. 3, area 35 acres 21 gunthas of Mouza Jamapatki, of taluq Achalpur, which was cultivated by respondent No. 2 Bankatsingh as a tenant. According to the petitioner, Bankatsingh had in his personal cultivation land more than three family holdings and the purchase of the land had thus become ineffective by the statutory provisions. He, therefore, prayed that the land in the possession of the tenant should be put in his possession. The tenant filed a reply admitting that besides field S. N. 3, he had his own cultivation to the extent of three family holdings. The Naib Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. H. Holck Larsen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR467(Bom)
Chandrachud, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question which we have to consider is whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to re-open the assessment proceedings of the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, under section 34 (1) (b) of the Act. 2. The assessee had shown the profit arising from the sale of shares held by him in M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., as capital gains, on the footing that the shares were held by him as investment. The claim of the assessee that he was an investor was accepted by the Income-tax Officer, as, indeed, a similar claim was accepted in the previous years. The assessments of the two years were completed by the Income-tax Officer on the 29th of January, 1958, and the 9th of October, 1958, respectively. 3. The very same Income-tax Officer then took up assessment proceedings of assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. In those proceedings, he reviewed the entire course of transactions from the year 1946, and...
Tag this Judgment!Framroze Rustomji Paymaster and ors. Vs. British Burmah Petroleum Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR642; [1976]46CompCas587(Bom)
1. At the hearing of notice of the motion dated 26th December, 1970, the defendants have propped three issues as to jurisdiction to be tried as preliminary issues under section 9A, Civil Procedure Code, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. None of the defendants has filed its or his written statement. I have, however, allowed the defendants to take all their objection as to jurisdiction of this court at this stage. 2. It will be necessary for the appreciation of the contentions taken by the defendants that some facts which are not in dispute be stated. The plaintiffs are some of the shareholders of the 1st defendant, the Births Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the company'). The company was incorporated as a limited company in England in 1910. It has its registered office in London. It has established a place of business in Bombay and has its head office in India in Bombay. The company has delivered to the Registrar of Companies, Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »