Mumbai Court December 1972 Judgments
Rajaram and anr. Vs. Ganpati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom269; 1973MhLJ696
Padhye, J. 1. This revision arises out of an insolvency matter. It has come to us on a reference being made at the instance of Masodkar, J. vide his order dated October 19, 1972. The learned Single Judge has stated the facts in his referring order and saw the conflict in the case-law on the question whether in a case where after adjudication no receiver is appointed, a creditor, without obtaining prior leave of the Court, can move an application under Section 53 and/or Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The other question that arises in the case is whether the transfer, which is sought to be challenged by the creditors is for valuable consideration and good faith. The whole case has been referred to us for decision and we, therefore, deal with both these aspects of the matter. A very few facts need be stated to appreciate the points involved.2. The opponent No. 4 Umakant Gajananrao Pathak was indebted to certain creditors. On May 24, 1960, he executed a deed of sale of a hous...
Tag this Judgment!Mahdukar Vishram Sawant Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR328
Joshi, J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with facts and points of law not material to this report, proceeded.] This takes us on to the last point raised by Mr. Rele who submitted that the award of sentences under both the counts was bad in law. In a nutshell, his arguments, which were mainly founded on Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, were to the effect that a man cannot be punished twice for the same offence. In support of his submission, my attention was drawn to the rulings in Lohana Kantilal v. State AIR[1954] Sau. 121 and In re P.S. Aravamudha AIR[1960] Mad. 27. In both these cases the view taken seems to be that offences falling under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are the same and, therefore, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act would be a bar for awarding separate sentences. It was observed (at p. 32) by Ramaswami J. in In re P.S. Aravamudha's case, referred to above, that.The essential ingredients of the offe...
Tag this Judgment!Dadaji Vishwanath Gohane Vs. Shamrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom229; 1973MhLJ363
ORDER1. An interesting question is raised in this petition by one of the co-owners, i.e., the petitioners herein having interest in Survey No. 142/1, area 3.29 acres of Ralegaon. The facts found by the courts below are that Nagorao was the tenant on the land and he inducted one Shamrao upon the land as a sub-tenant.2. The sub-tenancy of Shamrao was hit by the provisions of Section 33 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958, for it is a prohibition against sub-letting and the Law states that such sub-lease shall not be valid. The possession of Shamrao, therefore, was unlawful.3. Both the courts below have come to the finding that, that is the effect. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal treated the matter to be one governed by Section 120 (c) and held that the present petitioner on his personal behalf as well as on behalf of his co-owner Ganpat were entitled to treat Shamrao as trespasser and the application filed by them was tenable. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrao Bajirao Deshmukh Vs. Mahadeo Raoji Gore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom274; 1973MhLJ620
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a land-holder questioned the validity of an order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding that the respondent Mahadeo was entitled to be declared as a statutory owner of the entire suit field on and from 1-6-1963 under the provisions of Section 1-6-1963 under the provisions of Section 49-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region )Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The facts now found by the authorities lie in a very narrow compass. The disputed field Survey No. 87 area 30.4 acres was originally owned by Narayan. It was properly let out to one Raoji, the adoptive father of Mahadeo since the year 1951-52. Raoji was the protected lessee and the land was tenanted when the Act came into force on December 30, 1958. It appears that Raoji died sometime in the year 1955 and the present respondent Mahadeo succeeded to his interest as his adopted son.3. The petitioner in this case Anandrao purchased 15.00 acres of land out of Sur...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Raghunath Pande and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1005; 1973MhLJ108
Masodkar, J.1. These two appeals are by the two accused who stood charged under Section 161 IPC read with section 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 165-A IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 109 IPC respectively. They having been found guilty of these offences were accordingly convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, who tried them in Special Case No. 5 of 1959.2. The prosecution case against these accused had been that on April 14, 1969. at Umarkhed, the accused No. 1 who was a Naib Tahsildar received an illegal gratification in the sum of Rs 175/-f rom P. W. 1 Dadarao who was at the relevant time the President of Vividih Karyakari Society, Deosari. As far as accused No. 2 is concerned, the prosecution case was,that he being a petition-writer at the place where accused No. 1 was working as Naib-Tahsildar, had aided and abetted the act of this illegal gratification.3. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Jatashankar Dayaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR811; [1975]101ITR343(Bom)
Nain, J.1. This petition has been placed before the court by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court at the instance of the respondents to decide a preliminary question as to whether a pauper petition is maintainable in respect of an application by an assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for compelling the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court. 2. Petitioner has filed the above petition in forma pauperis for a direct to the Income-tax Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and raise and refer to this court certain questions of law specified in the petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The amount of tax in dispute is a little over Rs. 20,000 and the amount of court-fees payable under item No. 16 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, is Rs. 390. The petitioner states that he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fees payable by law and h...
Tag this Judgment!Harsukh Jadhavji Joshi Vs. Ramesh Himatlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom87; (1973)75BOMLR649; 1973MhLJ975
1. An important point of law arises in this appeal under the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The appellant is the judgment-debtor in suit No.8639 of 1969 in the city Civil Court at Bombay. the respondent is the plaintiff. On March 31, 1970, an ex parte money decree was passed in the said suit in the sum of Rs. 20.041/- and interest against this judgment-debtor. The plaintiff-decree-holder took out a warrant of attachment of flat No. 9 in a building belonging to Paresh co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a housing society registered under the Maharashtra co-operative societies Act, 1960 and situated in Plot No. 41-A, Podar Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay 54. On august 8, 1970 the flat was attached. The warrant of attachment was served on the judgment debtor while he was in jail at Rajkot. A copy thereof was pasted on the doors of the said flat. A warrant of sale was issued on October 16, 1970. A copy to it was served on the judgment-debtor when he was in jail, and a copy the...
Tag this Judgment!Shewa Lachha Banjar Vs. Bhawarilal Ganeshmal Marwadi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom139; 1973MhLJ726
ORDER1. The present petition has peculiar facts of its own. The respondent No.1 Bhawarilal claiming to be the purchaser as per sale-deed dated December 20, 1952, which is produced in this case, appears to have applied under Section 36 (2) of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, for possession of the land styling Gawarishankar (respondent No. 2) as the tenant and Mangayya (respondent No.3) as the sub-tenant. Those proceedings were registered separately and came to be determined in favour of Bhawarilal in which an order for possession in his favour as landlord was made. In the execution of that order, the present petitioner, who claimed to be in physical possession of the property and as tenant of the land, came to know about this order. Therefore, he applied to the Naib Tahsildar, Darwha, that he was a tenant of the land and was physical possession of the land and that he is being dispossessed in an execution proceeding upon the basis of the order obtained by Bhawarilal....
Tag this Judgment!Pandurabg Sakharam Vs. the Mahaarashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom20; ILR1974Bom816; 1973MhLJ792
ORDER1. The facts leading to the present petition are no more in dispute. The petitioner pandering is a protected lessee of the fields. Survey Nos. 28/2. 24/4 and 15/6 area 22 acres, of village sawargaon Dukre, situate in District Buldana. The respondent No. 4 Yadaosao is the landholder of the said land. The present proceedings came to be initiated by respondent No. 4 under the provisions of section 36 (2) read with section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. here in after called the Act, for possession of the land from his tenant Pandurang.2. The respondent No. 4 acquired right to these fields by a registered deed of partition which is evidenced by a document of December 17. 1958. The tenancy of pandurang is protected and dates back to a period prior to the date of partition, i.e., December 17. 1958. These being the facts the respondent No. 4 who is the tenure-holder having acquired by partition this land after 1st day of August 1953 and the protected lease in f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›