Mumbai Court September 1971 Judgments
Danial H. Walcott Vs. Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR436
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is a prisoner who is serving jail sentences awarded to him by the Presidency Magistrate's Court in Bombay as also by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.2. The substantial grievance which is made by the petitioner in this petition relates to the legality of the punishment of thirty days' separate confinement awarded to him by the Superintendent of the Nagpur Central Jail on January 30, 1971 in respect of prison offence. It is the case of the petitioner that two other prisoners by name Mangalgiri and Damani are kept in the barrack in which the petitioner has been kept and that the petitioner has been punished for having quarreled without any reason with co-prisoner Madhukar Mangalgiri. The petitioner alleges that Mangalgiri was dissatisfied with his being associated with the petitioner because the petitioner was a non-vegetarian and Mangalgiri had objection to the petitioner's consumption of meat in his presence. This averment a...
Tag this Judgment!Danial H. Walcott J. Prisoner Vs. Superintendent, Nagpur Central Priso ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ673
Chandurkar, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is a prisoner who is serving jail sentences awarded to him by the Presidency Magistrate's Court in Bombay as also by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.X X X X X X4. The substantial grievance which is made by the petitioner in this petition relates to the legality of the punishment of 30 day's separate confinement awarded to him by the Superintendent of the Nagpur Central Jail on 30-1-1971 in respect of prison offence. It is the case of the petitioner that two other prisoners by name Mangalgiri and Damani are kept in the barrack in which the petitioner has been kept and that the petitioner has been punished for having quarrelled without any reason with co-prisoner Madhukar Mangalgiri. The petitioner alleges that Mangalgiri was dissatisfied with his being associated with the petitioner because the petitioner was a non-vegetarian and Mangalgiri had objection to the petitioner's consumption of meat in his presence. This averment...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Akil Khan Vs. Premraj Jawanmal Surana and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom217; (1972)74BOMLR225; ILR1972Bom1040; 1972MhLJ483
Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance relating to the apportionment of compensation on compulsory acquisition of land between the intending vendor and the intending vendee whose contract has been frustrated by the act of acquisition by the State.2.The facts of this litigation are not in dispute except for the amount which has flowed from the purchaser to the buyer. We will give appropriate direction in respect of that dispute in due course. The undisputed position is that claimant No. 1 Mohammad Akil Khan was the owner of S. No. 4 measuring 34 Acres 35 Gunthas situate at village Garkheda in Aurangabad. He executed an agreement of sale relating to 30 acres out of this land in favour of claimant No. 2 Premraj Jawanmal Surna, who is respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. Under this agreement of sale, Ex. 57, admittedly Rs. 10,000/- have been received by the vendor - claimant No. 1. Under the contract the price fixed was Rupees 4,000/- per acre totalling upto Rup...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Dhootpapeshwar Sales Corporation Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas139(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. Anna Balwant Dunang, the petitioner, has filed this petition for winding up of Dhootpapeshwar Sales Corporation Private Ltd. The ground on which the winding-up petition is presented is that the company is unable to pay its debt and it is otherwise just and equitable that the company should be wound up. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit being Suit No. 339 of 1970 in the city civil court at Bombay against the company. In that suit, on April 30, 1970, a decree on admission was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the company for Rs. 15,872 and interest and costs. Under the decree, the decretal amount was payable by monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000 each, first of such instalments was payable by the company on or before 10th July, 1970, and subsequently monthly instalments were payable on or before the 10th day of each and every succeeding month until the whole of the amount due and payable under the decree was paid in full. There was a default clause contained i...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Agarwal Vs. Balkrishna Jawar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom343; (1972)74BOMLR238; 1972MhLJ474
ORDER1. This revision by the original complainant is directed against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate 27th Court, Mulund, Greater Bombay dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner against respondent No. 1 and one V. K. Jawar, alleging offences under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on a preliminary ground that the premises in dispute were not covered by the Act, inasmuch as they were not a 'flat' within the meaning of that term as defined in the Act.2. Few facts which it is necessary to state for the purposes of this application , are these :3.The accused, who are brothers and were partners of a concern styled as M/s. Korbusiers, widely advertised a housing scheme which was called 'Mini Land'. It appears that the accused had acquired about 45, 831 Sq. yards of open plot of land from M/s. Orient Corporation on lease for a peri...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsadbi Naga Pinjari Vs. Gunvantibai Ramsnehi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR723
Bhole, J.1. The petitioner here is a tenant, who has been ejected by the decree of the District Court, Dhulia in appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Taloda. The petitioner-defendant is a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 4 per month. The petitioner did not pay rent and she was, therefore, according to the landlady in arrears of rent from September 12, 1962. Because she was in arrears of rent therefore a notice of payment was issued to her on June 21, 1965, but it was refused. Because there was no compliance on the part of the petitioner therefore the landlady filed, a suit on July 26, 1965 on two grounds. The first ground was that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for a period more than six months. The second ground was that she wanted the premises for personal requirement. The petitioner contested the claim of the landlady by stating that she had not refused the notice at all; that on the other hand she had paid Rs. 254, which amount was ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Deshastha Rigvedi Brahman Madhyawarti Mandal Vs. Joint Charity C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas361(Bom)
Nain, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original applicants No. 1 against the order dated 3rd March, 1966, of a judge of the Bombay City Civil Court. The applicants No. 1 are Akhil Deshastha Rigvedi Brahman Madhyawarti Mandal (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the mandal'). The mandal is a company limited by guarantee incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and now under the Companies Act, 1956, under a license from the Central Government under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, corresponding to section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with the word 'Limited' in the name of the mandal. The respondent No. 1 is the Joint Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 2 was formerly the chairman of the mandal. The order under appeal held that the mandal was a public trust and as such was liable to be registered under section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Trusts Act'), as a pu...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Deshastha Rugvedi BrahmIn Madhyawarti Mandal Vs. Joint Charity C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: 1972MhLJ571
1. This is an appeal by the original Applicants No. 1 against the order dated 3rd March 1966 of a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court. The Applicants No. 1 are Akhil Deshastha Rigvedi Brahman Madhyawarti Mandal (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Mandal'). The Mandal is a Company limited by guarantee incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and now under the Companies Act, 1956 under a license from the Central Government under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 corresponding the Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 dispensing with the word 'Limited' in the name of the Mandal. The Respondent No. 1 is the Joint Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No. 2 was formerly the Chairman of the Mandal. The order under appeal held that the Mandal was a public trust and as such was liable to be registered under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Trusts Act') as a public trust notwit...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Pandit Vishwanath Atma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR112
Nain, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter called 'the Municipal Corporation') against the order dated August 9, 1971 passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court on a notice of motion, issuing an injuction against the appellants restraining them pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit from demolishing certain structures belonging to the respondents. The appellants are the original defendants in the suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit.2. A few facts leading to this litigation may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of two pieces of land bearing survey No. 11 Hissa Nos. 1 and 2 and survey No. 23 Hissa No. 10 situated in village Asalphe, Ghatkopar, within Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'). It appears that on March 2, 1971 an overseer of the Municipal Corporation found some work in progress on the said land which, according to him, was unauthorised construction...
Tag this Judgment!The Laxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sholapur Vs. Mohan Govind Diwanji an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom354; (1972)74BOMLR186; ILR1972Bom1033; 1972MhLJ423
ORDER1. The plaintiff, who is the owner of the suit house, and who wanted to evict the defendant, but did not succeed is the petitioner here. The respondent - defendant is occupying a portion on the ground floor of the Plaintiff's house as a monthly tenant on a payment of Rs. 20/- as rent. The property is in the city of Sholapur. The petitioner bank wanted the premises for the purpose of conducting the business. It therefore required the premises reasonably and bona fide for its own use and occupation. It, therefore, served a notice on the respondent dated 2-7-1964 demanding the possession of the premises as well as areas of the rent till the date of the notice. The respondent denied the claim of the petitioner by a reply to that notice. He, however, sent all the arrears. The suit thereafter for possession and mesne profits followed. The respondent resisted the suit. The trial Court framed a number of issues and found that the respondent has established that it bona fide required the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »