Mumbai Court February 1972 Judgments
HuseIn Abdul Karim Panju Vs. Mariambai Abdul Rahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom175; (1972)74BOMLR840
ORDER1. This is a Chamber Summons under Order 6 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code taken out by the Plaintiff-Petitioner for particulars of several statements and allegations contained in the affidavit dated 11th May 1971 filed by the defendant in support of the caveat dated 12th April 1971. The testamentary petition out of which the present application has arisen relates to the estate of one Esmail Abdul Karim Panju who died in Bombay on the 12th day of February 1965 leaving a will dated 29th June 1953 under which the plaintiff was appointed sole executor. The plaintiff filed this petition for the grant of probate on the 19th of August 1970 and a caveat and an affidavit in support of the caveat having been filed by the defendant the proceedings were numbered as a suit in accordance with the provision of Rule 710 of the Rules (O.S.) of this Court. For the sake of completing the facts it may be stated that I have already recorded on 2nd February, 1972 the evidence of Mr. Aibara the soli...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Govind Purushottam Shahane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ18; 1973MhLJ314
ORDERTulzapurkar, J.1. This revision application has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Nasik in Special Case No. 2 of 1971 on 12th June, 1971 whereby the learned Special Judge discharged the respondent-accused in respect of offences under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after holding that the sanction that had been accorded by the Government for prosecution of the respondent-accused was invalid and not in conformity with Section 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. A few facts giving rise to the prosecution of the respondent-accused may be stated. The respondent-accused was employed in the Co-operative Department of the Government and at the material time was working as Extension Officer (Co-operation), Block Development Office at Malegaon. As such Extention Officer it was his duty to aid and attend to the registration of Co-operative...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Laxminarayan Rathi and ors. Vs. Gangabisen Maniklal Sikchi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Bom326; 1972MhLJ738
Kotwal, C.J. (This reference to a Full Bench has been occasioned by a conflict of decisions of this Court in Channappa Girimalappa v. Bagalkot Bank : AIR1942Bom338 and Rama Kallappa Pujari v. Saidappa Sidrama Pujari AIR 1935 Bom 306. In both the cases the judgment is that of Sir John Beaumont, Chief Justice. The original question referred simply posed for out determination the conflict between these two decisions. In short which of them was right but after some preliminary discussion and with the consent of counsel for both the parties, we have reframed the question in order to bring out the real controversy between the parties in the litigation from which these two appeals have been filed. The question that we have now to determine is :-Is the plaintiff's suit maintainable having regard to the provisions of O. 2, R. 2 and O. 2, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2. The question arises upon the following facts : Gangabisan Sikchi was the owner of Kamal Theatre in Amravati town. He lea...
Tag this Judgment!Vidarbha Housing Board Vs. Income-tax Officer, City and Refund Circle, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR430(Bom); 1972MhLJ826
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Vidarbha Housing Board, Nagpur, is seeking to challenge the validity and or legality of the notice dated 6th March, 1968, issued by the Income-tax Officer, City circle and Refunds, Nagpur (being annexure 'A' to the Petition). The impugned notice is sought to be attacked as being without jurisdiction and in excess of authority of the officer concerned, and the circumstances in which the challenges is made may be stated. 2. The petitioner, that is, the Vidarbha Housing Board, Nagpur, is a body corporate having been established under the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 (Act NO. XLIII of 1950). It appears that initially under the said Act a common housing board both for Vidarbha region and Mahakoshal region was constituted by the name of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. Later on, under another Act called the Madhya Pradesh Statutory Bodies (Regional Constitution) Act, 1956, th...
Tag this Judgment!The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. S. Ramamurthy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom225; (1972)74BOMLR809; ILR1973Bom181; 1973MhLJ85
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the six Petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated March 19, 1969, whereby the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Collector of Ahmednagar dated August 31, 1965, in the matter of Inquiry No. Ceiling Rahuri 42 of 1964, whereby the Collector made a declaration that the partnership firm of the six Petitioners, viz., M/s Somalia Farm, Lakh, was entitled to retain land to the extent of one ceiling area i.e. 108 acres of dry-crop land and the total area of land which was in excess of the ceiling area was 812 acres and 32 3/4 gunthas equivalent to dry-crop area 1321 acres and 12 gunthas.2. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows : -Prior to October 1, 1949, one K. J. Somalia was the owner of three big agricultural farms, one of them being Somalia Farm, situated at Lakh in Rahuri Taluka. This last farm was sold on October 1, 1949,...
Tag this Judgment!Castophene Mfg. Co. Vs. Janaki Gillumal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: [1973(26)FLR31]; (1972)IILLJ417Bom
K.K. Desai, J.1. By a notice, dated August 10, 1965, the petitioner-company intimated 13 of its workmen that they would be laid off for 4 days from Wednesday the 11th to Saturday, the August 14, 1965. By another notice, dated August 14, 1965, the petitioner company gave notice to other 12 workmen that they would be laid off for 4 days from Monday the 16th to Thursday the August 19, 1965. In both the notices the cause mentioned for the lay off was 'on account of the non-availability of raw materials'. The employees mentioned in the two notices made applications before the Payment of Wages Authority claiming wages for the period of four days mentioned in respect of each of the employees in the above notices. In connection with these claims, on behalf of the petitioner-company, the main contention was that during the period of 'lay off' the applicants were not on duty and the company was accordingly not liable to pay any wages for that period. The Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdi...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanchand Balaram Shah and ors. Vs. Kumar Gangabai Shelgonda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom179; (1972)74BOMLR735
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a revision application against the decision of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Kolhapur in B. A. D. R. Appeal No. 1 of 1970 filed in the Dist. Court at Kolhapur. That was an appeal against the decision and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Kagal, on 3rd April 1970 in Award Darkhast No. 4 of 1965. The learned Extra Assistant Judge by his judgment and order dated 18th February 1971 dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed Civil Judge Junior Division, Kagal. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, revision application. By an order made on 11th October 1971 Gatne, J. referred the matter to a Division Bench and in these circumstances it has come up for hearing before us.2. The narrow point arising for determination in the revision application is the meaning to be given to the expression 'suit instituted in any Civil court' occurring in Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Y.G. Chavan Vs. Parvatibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR845; 1973MhLJ83
Vimadalal, J.1. In the midst of the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff, Mr. H.K. Shah who appears for defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 applied for amendment of the Written Statement as per draft handed in by him, whereby he sought to raise the plea that the suit is bad on the ground of the non-joinder of the other partners, of the firm of M/s. Shankar Gunaji Bros., as well as of the landlord of the three industrial Galas, all of whom 'are necessary and/or proper parties.' Mr. H.K. Shah has in the first instance submitted that para. 3 of the Written Statement of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5, as it stands, has been worded erroneously due to the oversight of the learned Counsel who drafted it. It may be pointed out that in the said para. 3 the averment which has been made is that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him in the absence of necessary and proper averments in the plaint. I have not the least doubt that the contention of Mr. H.K. Shah that what the learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Mahadu Jagdale Vs. Tatya Sadhy Jagdale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom91; (1972)74BOMLR712; ILR1973Bom787; 1972MhLJ935
1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff No. 1 against the order dated 30th June, 1970, passed by the learned Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, holding that he did not have exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mohal, had also jurisdiction to try the suit, that under Section 15. Civil Procedure Code the suit must be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, viz., the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mohal, and returning the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentations to the proper Court. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the Defendants in the same suit. The Respondent No.5 is the plaintiff No.2.2. The Plaintiffs filed the suit from which the present appeal arises for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to joint family and for partition and separate possession of their 5/6th share in the said properties, and for other reliefs. The properties consist of agricultural land, non-agricultu...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Puranik and ors. Vs. the Sholpur Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom160; (1972)74BOMLR769; ILR1973Bom175; 1973MhLJ105
K. K. Desai, J.1. By Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 5 properties bearing C. T. S. Nos. 8278/3, 8278/4, 8280/2, 8281/3 and 8281/4 situated at Sholapur, we notified for acquisition as being needed for public purposes viz. municipal offices and road widening. Individual notices were served about the above notification on one Nigude, one Shah and one Keshavlal, who were the owners of these properties. The notifications were published in accordance with the provisions in sub-section (1) of Section 4 in the Official Gazette in further pursuance of above provisions, the Collector put up public notices of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality of the properties. In fact one such public notice was put up by affixing the same on the compound wall of the properties bearing C. T. S. Nos. 8278/3 and 8278/4. The other three properties were in the same compound as the above C. T. survey numbers.2. The two of the above properties are me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »