Mumbai Court April 1972 Judgments
Bhila Keshav Patil and anr. Vs. Ganpati Chunilal Kabre and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: (1973)75BOMLR98; 1973MhLJ344
ORDER1. The only question which arises in this special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioners had exercised their rights of statutory purchase under section 32-0 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, within one year from the commencement of the tenancy within the meaning of that section.2. The facts are as follows:-The subject-matter of dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioners-tenants and their landlord-respondent No. 1 is Gat No.102, measuring 14 acres and 13 gunthas assessed at Rs.40 - 12 , situated at Village palsod in Taluka Jalgaon. On October 28, 1967, the petitioners made an application before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Tahsildar Jalgaon, stating that they had cultivated the land in 1966-67 as tenants and had given necessary notice to purchase the suit-land on June 30, 1967 and should be, therefore, declared the purchasers of the land under section 32-0 and the price should be fixed under sec...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas Narayan More and anr. Vs. Chunilal Bhailal Wani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom195; (1972)74BOMLR606; ILR1973Bom1134; 1972MhLJ917
Kotval, C.J.1. The judgment in this Special Civil Application will also govern the disposal of Special Civil Applications Nos. 890 of 1967, 891 of 1967 and 24 of 1968. Along with these Special Civil Applications the parties in several other Special Civil Applications pending in this Court were represented before us and have been heard but they were heard only as interveners upon the questions referred to the Full Bench only.2. The following three questions have been referred for our decision:-(1) If the application under Section 33-B is made by more than one landlord which, of course, of necessity, must be landlords jointly holding the same piece of land, are the other lands in the personal cultivation of all the landlords, jointly or even individually, to be taken into consideration for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 33-B when applying its provision and particularly the one contained in the words 'in the total'? (2) When the application under Section 33-B has...
Tag this Judgment!Punjaram Mithu Kirad Vs. Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Bom339; 1972MhLJ667
Padhye, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30-3-1971 passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, with powers of the Collector and the order dated 31-7-1971 passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, in an appeal which was treated as a revision by the Commissioner. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Khasras 1 and 5 of Mouza Mahadulla, tahsil Ramtek, district Nagpur on the death of the original owner Mahipat son of Madhao Mahajan and his widow Sarjabai. The State Government granted a mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 1 in respect of this piece of land and the Collector by his letter dated 24th March, 1969 asked the Sub - Divisional Officer, Ramtek to fix the compensation under Section 48 (4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and to arrange to tender the amount to the land owner. The Sub - Divisional Officer by his order dated 30-3-1971 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre and fixed the price accordingly on consideration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Gopal Joshi Vs. Narayan Govind Vidwans and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom33; (1973)75BOMLR458; ILR1973Bom1250; 1973MhLJ874
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner, who is the landlord of respondent No.1. challenges the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated October 31. 1967, dismissing his appeal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 on the ground that, in calculating the holdings of respondent No. 1. the Deputy Collector had wrongly excluded the lands belonging to the petitioner from the said holding and this ground was not allowed to be agitated in appeal before the Revenue Tribunal.2. By his order dated June 29, 1967, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Ceiling).G.S.Mills No. 1. Kopargaon, excluded S. Nos. 306/1, 30306/2 and 305/3 belonging to the petitioner on the ground that these lands ceased to be in actual possession of respondent No. 1 under a decree for partition passed in favour of his son observing as follows:'.... From the evidence already recorded I was also at one time inclined to treat the Civil Court decree as a collusive proceeding between int...
Tag this Judgment!Bandu Dhanaji Ahire Vs. Chatursing Parwatrao Thoke and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom26; (1973)75BOMLR267; ILR1974Bom105; 1973MhLJ473
ORDER1. A rather interesting question of interpretation lof Sec 32-O of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948. in the context of the tenancies created under section 8 of the Maharashtra revenue Patels (Abolition oof Office) Act, 1962 arises in these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The relevant facts may be breiefly stated as follows: the lands in dispute are S. Nos. 140/1 and 4 of village Hingave. Taluka Kalwan. District Nasik. and S. Nos. 126 and 128 of the village. The lands were originally Inam lands class VI-B. Respondent No 1 in the two petitions was the Inamdar. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No.1011 of 1968 was the tenant of S. Nos. 140/- and 4 of village. Hingave. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1091 of 1968 was the tenant ofd S. Nos. 126 and 128. The Inams were abolished under the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition odf Office) Act, 1962. with effect from January 1, 1963. It is not disputed that the lands...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Ramchandra Sharma Vs. Narayanibai Mulchand Agrawal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom214; (1973)75BOMLR24; ILR1973Bom993; 1973MhLJ157
ORDER1. These three petitioners arise out of a suit filed against the petitioners and others under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as follows : There is in Polan Peth in Jalgaon a plot of land having City Survey nos. 1862. Out of the said plot, an area measuring 117 1/2 feet east-west and 150 feet north-south is the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties to these petitions. The said area, which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the suit plot', is owned by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiffs are respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in each of these petitions. Defendant No.1, in each of these petitions. Defendant No.1, who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 1968 and respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1839 of 1968 and 1840 of 1968 and respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1839 of 1968 and 1840...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondi Vithoba Koli Vs. Mahadeo Dagdu Koli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom323; (1973)75BOMLR290
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the land Survey No. 163/1 admeasuring 13 acres assessed at Rs. 11-10-0 situate in the village of Degaon in North Sholapur Taluka of Sholapur District. The land was originally Shet Sanadi Inam granted tot he ancestor of the parties for rendering service as Kotwal of the village. Admittedly, succession to the land was governed by the rule of primogeniture and it was also impartible. It is also common ground that this was the only land belonging to the family of the parties.2. One Vithoba was the propositus. He died long back leaving behind him three sons Dagdu, Dhondi and Damu. Dagdu died on 3rd March, 1961 leaving behind him his widow Muktabai, defendant No.6 and give sons viz. defendants Nos. 1 to 5, Defendant No. 5 died pending the suit. Dhondi is the plaintiff. Damu also died some time back leaving behind him his widow Parvati, defendant No. 8, and his son Hanmantu, defendant No. 7. The Watan was abolished under the Bombay Inferior Village Wat...
Tag this Judgment!Kondaji Pundulik Lanore Vs. Hari Baly Pote and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom293; (1973)75BOMLR69; ILR1973Bom742
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a rather interesting question of interpretation of Section 32 read with Sections 37 and 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner was a tenant of the lands in dispute namely survey Nos. 804/1 to 8, 808/8-9 and 808/10-11 situated in village Sinnar, Taluka Sinnar. He was cultivating the lands on the tillers' day i.e. on April 1, 1957. He continued to cultivate the lands till 1963 when proceedings under Section 32-G were suo motu instituted by the Additional Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Sinnar. On the date of hearing, the tenant was absent. An order was passed on October 28, 1963, declaring the statutory purchase of the tenant to be ineffective. Upon a review application the case was heard afresh, after giving notices to the landlord Devidas Balaji Shimpi and one Jaivantabai Bala who died during the pendency of the proceedings and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ballarpur Collieries Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR219(Bom); 1972MhLJ728
Chandurkar, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduct the business loss of Rs. 1,38,756 for 1957-58, in computing its total income for 1958-59, for the purpose of levying the tax on registered firms 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduct the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,12,283 and Rs. 2,15,911 from the profits of the year to arrive at the total income for the material year ?' 3. These questions arise on the following facts : The assessee, M/s. Ballarpur Collieries Company, Nagpur, is a registered firm carrying on business of coal mining. In the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee's income was Rs. 9,236 before adjustment of depreciation. The depreciation allowable for that year was Rs. 1,21,519. After setting off the depreciation to the extent of profit...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Gopal Berry Vs. M.V. Hirway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973(27)FLR256]; (1973)IILLJ22Bom; 1973MhLJ322
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original petitioner from the judgment and order made by Kantawala, J., on March 18, 1971, dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition No. 904 of 1969 with costs. 2. Respondent No. 1 joined service of the appellant who carried on business as proprietor of Asian Photos at Nanabhai Lane, Bombay, sometime in 1958. He was discharged from service on October 3, 1967. His case was that his discharge from service was wrongful. He accordingly recorded the relevant facts in his correspondence addressed, inter alia, to the officer in charge of the shops and establishments office and Labour Commissioner's office. He claimed reinstatement with back wages. The conciliation proceedings failed and the conciliation officer made normal failure report. By reference dated April 30, 1968, the demand of respondent No. 1 for reinstatement with full back wages was referred to the Labour Court. The parties appeared personally before the Labour Court and by the award...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »