Mumbai Court March 1972 Judgments
Sujataali, Motebarali and anr. Vs. Rupchand Vishnu Dhande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom365; (1973)75BOMLR257; ILR1973Bom1163; 1973MhLJ766
ORDER1. These two Special Civil Applications were filed on behalf of Shrimati Balubai Motebarali and involve a common question as to whether the respondent No.1 in each of these matters who are tenants become owners under Section 32 of the portions of the land left with them after the landlady recovered possession of half fo the land under Section 31.2. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Additional Mamlatdar, Yawal, held that because the landlady had applied under S. 31 read with S. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for recovering possession of the land for bona fide personal cultivation and obtained possession after fighting the litigation up to the Revenue tribunal of the half portion on May 16, 1964, she became the owner of the land. The said order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal was set aside by the Special Deputy Collector, Jalgaon, who following a decision of the Revenue Tribunal reversed the finding of the Mamlatdar. He held that on the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shantabai Ramchandra Ghatge and ors. Vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom203; (1973)75BOMLR79
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to four lands Survey No. 1442/2 admeasuring 3 acres 4 gunthas assessed at Rs. 20-7-0, Survey No. 1445/2 admeasuring 1 acre and 1/2 guntha assessed at Rs. 7-4-0, Survey No. 1442/1 admeasuring 3 acres and 4 gunthas at Rs. 20-7-0, and Survey No. 1445/1 admeasuring 1 acre 1/2 guntha assessed at Rs. 7-4-0, situate within the limits of the Municipal Borough of Kolhapur. The heirs of original defendant No.1 and original defendant No.2 are the appellants; respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs, and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the original defendants Nos. 3 and 4. the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had leased these lands to one Bhiva, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and one Gundu Jadhav on 12th October 1950 for a period of 10 years under a Kabulayat at an annual rental of Rs. 1000/-. The period stipulated in the Kabulayat expired on 11th October 1960. The plaintiffs then applied under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agric...
Tag this Judgment!Wadilal Damodar Shah Vs. Joseph Paul Abrakkal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR752
Bhole, J.1. The original complainant, Wadilal Shah, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal has come here in revision. He and his son were walking down Bomanji Petit Road on October 24, 1970. The road in some parts is wide and in other parts narrow. The accused who was driving the lorry is said to have caused the accident at about 12-30 noon in the narrow part of the road. The lorry came from the opposite direction. The complainant and his son were walking down towards Warden Road. When they found the lorry coming, both the complainant and his son stood with their backs to the compound wall there. The complainant's grievance is that the lorry in spite of this position taken up by them struck both of them. The result was that both of them fell down. It is further the complaint of the complainant that the accused reversed his lorry with the result that the rear right wheel passed over his left leg and his ankle, therefore, was fractured. Both the complainant and his son were taken firs...
Tag this Judgment!Wadilal Damodar Shah Vs. Joseph Paul Abrakkal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1245; 1973MhLJ46
ORDERBhole, J.1. The original complainant Wadilal Shah being aggrieved by the order of acquittal has come here in revision. He and his son were walking down Bomanji Petit Road on 24-10-70 The road in some parts is wide and in other parts narrow. The accused who was driving the lorry is said to have caused the accident at about 12-30 noon in the narrow part of the road. The lorry came from the opposite direction. The complainant and his son were walking down towards Warden Road. When they found the lorry coming, both the complainant and his son stood with their backs to the compound wall there. The complainant's grievance is that the lorry in spite of this position taken up by them struck both of them. The result was that both of them fell down. It is further the complaint of the complainant that the accused reversed his lorry with the result that the rear right wheel passed over his left leg and his ankle therefore was fractured. Both the complainant and his son were taken first in a t...
Tag this Judgment!Tenumal Bishamal Singhi Vs. Amar Mohandas Sindhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom84; (1972)74BOMLR644; 1972MhLJ946
ORDER1. This is a revision petition by the original plaintiff against that part of the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, sitting on the small cause side, by which the learned Judge dismissed plaintiff's claim to the extent of Rs. 395/-.2. Plaintiff's case was that respondent No. 1, original defendant No.1 Amar Mohandas Sindhi, borrowed from him Rs. 700/- on October 5, 1964, promising to repay the same by monthly instalments of Rs. 25/-. Defendant No.1 was alleged to have executed the bond (Exh. 18) to that effect. It was alleged that respondent No.2, original defendant No.2, stood surety for defendant No. 1. Plaintiff further averred that after the execution of the bond, defendant No.1 repaid in all Rs. 75/- only and therefore, on September 27, 1967, he issued a notice to the defendants to pay the balance. To this notice, defendant No.1 gave a reply on 11-12-1967 acknowledging his liability. It was, however, stated that neither of the defendants paid the balance....
Tag this Judgment!Someshwar Bapurao Nilakhe Vs. Nivritti Baburao Gholave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom147; (1972)74BOMLR647; 1972MhLJ916
ORDER1. The short point that arises on this revision petition by the original plaintiff is whether plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation.2. Plaintiff is a businessman and defendant-opponent in this revision petition had dealings with him between 3-2-1962 and 1-8-1963 and on account of this dealing the defendant owed a sum of Rupees 373-60 to the plaintiff at the foot of the account. This liability was acknowledged by the defendant on 5-11-1963. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this petition arises on 5-11-1966. The defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. This question was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue by the trial Court and it held that the suit was barred by limitation and consequently dismissed it with costs.3. The view taken by the trial Court is obviously erroneous. Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which su...
Tag this Judgment!Achut Pandurang Kulkarni Vs. Sadashiv Ganesh Phulambrikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom210; (1973)75BOMLR21; 1973MhLJ153
ORDER1. This special civil application is directed against the concurrent findings of the 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, dated April 23, 1969 and of the Assistant Judge, Poona, dated November 19, 1969, that the premises in dispute between the Petitioner-tenant and Respondent-landlord 'having not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit', the landlord was entitled to recover possession of the premises under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The landlord filed a suit against the tenant on the ground that the tenant was a Government servant, who was transferred to Sholapur and was staying in Sholapur with his family for more than a year before the suit and had, therefore, kept the suit premises unused for more than six months before the date of the suit. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice dated February 13, 1967, and filed the suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalandar Gorakh Kirtikar Vs. Shobha J. Kirtikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1972
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR755
Bhole, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 1 who had filed an application for maintenance on the ground of ill-treatment, assault and desertion. The petitioner contested the claim by his wife stating that she is not his legally wedded wife and that, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. The respondent-wife had also claimed maintenance for the two children. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Dadar before whom the case was tried considered the question of legality of marriage and found that respondent No. 1 had established that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. After considering the version as regards the income of the petitioner the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that he would be able to pay to the respondent Rs. 60 per month as maintenance and Rs. 30 per month to each of the two sons who are now with the respondent. This order is challenged here by the petitioner. The point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Keda Kalu Wagh Patil Vs. Devidas Pandharinath Metkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom35; (1973)75BOMLR92; 1973MhLJ358
ORDER1. This Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the concurrent findings and orders of the tenancy authorities and order of the tenancy authorities holding that the petitioner had ceased to be a tenant of the land in his possession bearing S.No. 32 of village Khedgaon in Tal. Kalwan of district Nasik. On the tillers day i.e. April 1, 1957 the respondent, who is the landlord of the petitioner, was a minor. He attained majority on June 1, 1961. The petitioner-tenant failed to exercise his right to purchase the land before June 1, 1963 as required by Section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as it stood before its amendment by Maharastra Act 49 of 1969.2. Under that amendment, which came into force on October 18, 1969, a proviso was added to sub-section (IA) -. The said sub-section after the amendment adding the said proviso reads as under:-'(IA) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him u...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Velji Lakshmi and Co., a Firm and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom86; (1972)74BOMLR628; 1972MhLJ867
ORDER1. These two petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution raise an interesting question with regard to the interpretation of Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates, Control Act, 1947, in connection with a notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay which runs as follows :BOMBAY TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1954,TOWN PLANNING SCHEMEBOMBAY CITY NO.1.NOTICE NO.FE/221.To The Times of India,Owner : Original Plot No. 37,Elphinstone Estate Section.WHEREAS the Government of Bombay has been pleased to sanction the above scheme under Section 51 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (XXVII of 1955) on the 4th September, 1957, and to fix the 1st December, 1957, as the date on which the scheme shall come into operation AND WHEREAS the Notification relating to such sanction has been published under No. TPB-1054-M, Local Self Government and Public Health Department at page 2611 of Part I of the Bombay Government Gazette dated the 12th September, 1957 and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »