Mumbai Court March 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Minoo Maneckshaw Kalifa Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR788a
Tulzapukkar, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner one Minoo Maneckshaw Kalifa, an employee of the Central Bank, is challenging the legality and/or validity of the decision of respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to impound his passport under Section 10(5)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, which was communicated to him by respondent No. 2 (Regional Passport Officer, Bombay) by his letter dated November 25, 1971.2. The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated. Petitioner Minoo Maneckshaw Kalifa, who belongs to a middle class family, joined the service of the Central Bank of India Ltd. on July 16, 1951 as a clerk in the Bank's Head Office at Bombay and later on worked in various capacities such as Junior Officer, Accountant and Agent of local branches. In or about July 1969 since he was likely to be transferred to the London Office of the Central Bank, which had by then become a statutory Corporation pursuant to the nationalisation of the ...
Gulabrao Wamanrao Patil Vs. S.D. Raje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1972
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR720
Bhole, J.1. The original accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon directing commission to be issued for the examination of the Hon'ble Minister for Education, Shri Madhukarrao Chowdhari, as a witness for the prosecution have come here in' revision. A defamatory matter was published in a weekly called 'Janashakti' published from Jalgaon on December 17, 1970. The impugned article was captioned 'Bridge will shift where Ministers stray'. The Public Prosecutor, Jalgaon after obtaining the necessary sanction filed a complaint under Section 500, Indian Penal Code against the applicants. On the day when the hearing was fixed it was argued that the Hon'ble Minister Shri. Choudhary, who was said to have been defamed was an essential witness and that he should be examined. It was conceded that he should be examined at least once before the charge and that he may not be examined after the charge. The prosecution then filed an applic...
Gulabrao Wamanrao Patil and anr. Vs. S.D. Raje and the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ948
ORDERBhole, J.1. The original accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon directing commission to be issued for the examination of the Hon'ble Minister for Education, Madhukarrao Chowdhari, as a witness for the prosecution have come here in revision. A defamatory matter was published in a weekly called 'Janashakti' published from Jalgaon on 17 December 1970. The impugned article was captioned 'Bridge will shift where Ministers stray'. The Public Prosecutor, Jalgaon after obtaining the necessary sanction filed a complaint under Section 500 I. P. C against the applicants. On the day when the hearing was fixed it was argued that the Hon'ble Minister Shri. Chowdhari, who was said to have been defamed is an essential witness and that he should be examined. It was conceded that he should be examined at least once before the charge and that he may not be examined after the charge. The prosecution then filed an application stating that ...
Kishinchand Murjimal and ors. Vs. Bal Kalavati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom46; (1972)74BOMLR623; 1972MhLJ822
ORDER1. These three Special Civil Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by the Trustees of a Public Charitable Trust known as 'Manikram Menghraj Trust.' It is trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trustees filed three suits. R.A.E. Suit No. 4497 of 1963, R. A. E. Suit No. 782/6191 of 1963 against respective tenants who are the respective respondents in the three petitions. The suits were decreed by the trial Court and the decrees for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) read with Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in all the three suits were set aside in the three appeals filed by the respective tenants before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes on the ground that greater hardship would be caused to the tenants if a decree for eviction is passed. The said decision of the Small Causes Court is challenged in all the above petitions; and the principal question which arises for...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Jamunadevi Shrikrishna Mohta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR800; 1972MhLJ469
Chandurkar, J.1. The only question which is involved in these two appeals is whether, having regard to the provisions of Sections 22 and 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the certificate of registration of the transport vehicle in question was current so as to give rise to the presumption contemplated by Section 3(2) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tax Act). Admittedly, the respondent is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. BYY 1822. It is not disputed that this truck would be a transport vehicle as denned in Section 2(33) of the Act. She was prosecuted for non-payment of tax under the Tax Act. The offence alleged to have been committed by her under Section 16 of the Tax Act was in respect of two periods, namely, (1) April 1, 1966 to June 30, 1966, and (2) January 1, 1967 to March 31, 1967. We are not concerned with the other periods...
Pralhad Ganaba Kapare Vs. Sadaba Rambhau Bhonsale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom172; (1972)74BOMLR687; 1973MhLJ124
ORDER1. These two petitioners raise a common question and can be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner is the owner of lands situated in Hadapsar, which are the subject-mater of the two petitioners. Survey Nos. 159/5 and 160/14 are the subject-matter of Special Civil Application No. 2140 of 1968. Survey Nos. 148A/3, 160/3 and 160/17 are the subject-matter of the second petition. The only question which arises under the said petitioners is whether the Revenue Tribunal was right in holding that the statutory title vested in the tenant of the said lands, respondent No.1, under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was not divested by a notification issued by the Government which resulted in excluding the lands from the operation of Sections 32 to 32-R under Section 88-C (1) (b) of the said Act. The notification was admittedly issued after the vesting of the title in the respondent No.1. The same was issued under the Provincial Municipal Corporation ...
Kishan Saluba Vs. Dharamdevi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom96; (1973)75BOMLR703; ILR1974Bom120; 1973MhLJ951
ORDER1. The only point which arises in this special civil application directed against a decree for eviction passed by the Rent Controller at Aurangebad and confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Aurangabad, on September 9, 1966, is whether the two authorities under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, were right in holding that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to apply for an order of eviction under Section 15 (3) not with standing that she was occupying a residential house in which she had a share along with her brother and sister.2. The subject-matter of dispute between the petitioner-tenant and respondent No. 1 landlady, consists of the ground floor of a portion of a building bearing Municipal No. 1155 situate at Raja Bazar at Aurangabed, Respondent No. 1 Dharmadevi became the owner of the said house under the Will executed by her father late Rai Chotelal, Curiously, Rai Chotelal had not made any Will in respect of any other property and died on A...
Krishna Laxman Yadav and ors. Vs. Narsinghrao Vithalrao Sonawane and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom358; (1973)75BOMLR29; 1973MhLJ225
K.K. Desai, J. 1. This is a petition on behalf of the original plaintiffs in Small Causes Court Civil Suit No. 1543 of 1962 instituted at Poona. Respondent No. 1 is the original defendant-landlord.2. The Respondent No.1 owns a house bearing City Survey No. 24 situate at Somwar Peth, Poona. The house consisted of different small tenants on the ground and two floors. The Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 occupied different tenements at monthly rents. In consequence of the Panshet floods which occurred on 12th July 1961, the house was flooded with waters and excessively damaged. By a notice given in August 1961, the Municipal Corporation of Poona directed the Respondent No.1 to remove first and second floors of the house as being dangerous to human life. The tenants claimed that the notice should be withdrawn but the Corporation refused to withdraw the notice. A large part of the house fell down in November 1961 and the Municipal Corporation ultimately removed the house to level of the plinth and c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›