Mumbai Court July 1972 Judgments
The Central Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. Vs. K.R. Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR69
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner company has claimed a 'Writ of Prohibition against the Industrial Tribunal for preventing the Tribunal from proceeding with the adjudication of the dispute referred to the Tribunal under Order of Reference No. AJC. 25(4) 670 LAB II dated November 4, 1967 and/or from proceeding with Reference (IT) No. 390 of 1967.2. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows:3. By an Indenture of Settlement dated October 12, 1941 made by Bai Bhicaiji Bennet and Bai Putlibai Broacha two immoveable properties known as 'Shapurji Bharucha Baug' situated at Vithalbhai Patel Road, and one immoveable property situated at Khetwadi Main Road were settled upon certain private trusts. The Deed of Trust is produced at exh. F, in the present proceedings. By another Indenture of Settlement dated November 13, 1941 Bai Bhicaiji Bennet and Bai Putlibai Broacha settled one immoveable property situated at Dadar upon c...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Vithal Mhatre Vs. Arvind Ranchhod Parekh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom94; (1973)75BOMLR694; ILR1974Bom114; 1973MhLJ958
ORDER1. The petitioner in the above Special Civil Application became the tenant of the lands in dispute under a lease for ten years granted by the Manager appointed under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, under a Kabulayat dated October 12, 1953. On an application made by the landlord-respondent No.1 on September 25, 1967, the management was terminated with effect fro December 28, 1967. The Deputy Collector further ordered the petitioner to deliver possession of the lands to the landlord under Section 61 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The said order was challenged by the tenant in a revision application. The Revenue Tribunal rejected the revision application on January 30, 1969 on the ground that once the management was terminated, the petitioner could not claim the status of a tenant under the contractual lease given by the Manager or under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 2. The said decisions are ch...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Trimbakrao Ghisad Vs. Malti Madhukar Ghisad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom141; (1973)75BOMLR311; ILR1973Bom1003; 1973MhLJ204
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which is referred to the Division Bench by Gatne J. is whether an order made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is appealable or can only be challenged in revision. The applicant in this revision application is the original plaintiff who has filed a petition in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, under Section 12(1) (b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, asking inter alia for a declaration of nullity of his marriage with the opponent No.1. In the proceedings before the trial Court the opponent No.1, who is the wife of the petitioner, filed an application for grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act and claimed Rs. 200/- on account of monthly allowance, Rs. 2,000/- on account of Court expenses and Rs. 400/- on account of costs of defence, because, according to her, at the relevant time she was residing at Ahmednagar. This claim was contested by the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Dagduamji, Shop Vs. Shrikisan Ramkisan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom313; (1973)75BOMLR186; 1973MhLJ190
1. A short but interesting question about the applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, arises in this second appeal.2. The Appellant before me is the original Defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 1961 and the Respondent to this second appeal is the original Plaintiff. The said suit was tried by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Malegaon, who dismissed the same with costs. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court at Nasik, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1963. The Defendant had also preferred cross-objections which were heard along with that appeal by the learned District Judge, Nasik, who by his order dated 15th June 1964 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trail Court dismissing the Plaintiff's suit. The Defendant was ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff Rs. 6, 536/12/- along with proportionate costs and future interest on Rs. 4,000/- from the date...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmandas Bansilal Rathod Vs. Zumberlal Surajmal Gandhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom115; (1973)75BOMLR678; 1974MhLJ524
ORDER1. This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. which was originally filed as Civil Revision Application No. 557 of 1965 and was allowed to be converted into a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is directed against the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge dated September 17, 1964, decreeing the landlord's claim for arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 1,933-5-4 though confirming the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession.2. The trial Court had dismissed the claim for the said amount on the ground that the tenant had under a registered lease deed (Exhibit 34) dated December 18, 1958 executed by the petitioner in favour of the former owner Balubai Dulichand, paid a sum of Rupees 2,500/- towards the rent of the premises at the rate of Rs. 700/- per annum for four years and had agreed to pay Rs. 300/- at the end of the said period. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs, who purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New Great Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas446(Bom); [1973]90ITR348(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The judgment in this income-tax reference shall also govern the disposal of I.T. Reference No. 9 of 1971 and I.T. Reference No. 97 of 1971. These three references involve the same point and substantially raise the same question. They were also argued together. 2. The respondents in each of the these three references are insurance companies doing general insurance business and each of these companies derived an income which consists of dividends arising out of their investments. These dividends are received from Indian companies. The short question is whether the dividend income received by the three respondent companies is wholly exempt from super-tax either under provisions of section 99(1)(iv) (as it then stood) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under section 85A of the said Act. In Income-tax Reference No. 9 of 1971, the respondent-assessee has also claimed exemption under the provisions of section 85 and section 235 of the same Act in respect of dividend income. In ea...
Tag this Judgment!Reshmabai and ors. Vs. Sona Puna Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Bom118; (1973)75BOMLR710; ILR1974Bom281
1. This second appeal reached hearing before me on 12 th July, 1972 when it was pointed out that the first respondent to this second appeal. Sonu Puna Patil (Original Plaintiff No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1960) had died on 10th October 1968. It was further stated that although intimation to this effect had been conveyed to the appellant's Advocate on 4th February 1972 no steps have been taken by the appellants to bring Sonu's heirs on the record. On this admitted position I held that the appeal had abated as far as the first respondent Sonu was concerned. The question then remained to be considered was whether the appeal had abated qua the second respondent and even if it be held that it had not abated could it be proceeded with against the second respondent ?2. Mr. Ganpule on behalf of the second respondent contended that the appeal could not be proceeded with only against second respondent because if it was proceeded with an allowed this would result in two inconsistent dec...
Tag this Judgment!Chandkhan and ors. Vs. W.N. Gound and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1972
Reported in: 1972MhLJ792
Chandurkar, J. 1. This judgment governs Special Civil Applications Nos. 528, 529 and 530 of 1970.2. All the three petitioners in these petitions had submitted the nomination forms for election as panchas of the Gram Panchayat. Malegaon. Tahsil Washim, District Akola. The elections of panchas to the said Gram Panchayat under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were to be held on 24-5-1970. 6-5-1970 was the last date for filing of the nomination papers and the nomination papers of all the three petitions were rejected on 7-5-1970 on which date scrutiny was held. The circumstances under which these forms came to be rejected are as follows :-Chandkhan, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 528 of 1970 was a candidate from ward No.2. An objection was raised to his nomination paper on the ground that on 8-9-1969 a bill for Rs. 32.35 P. on account of taxes payable tot he Gram Panchayat was given to him, but he having failed to pay that amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Seksarai Cotton Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1972
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas613(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. This is a judges summons dated 12th January, 1972, taken out by the applicants (the Union of India) seeking permission or leave of this court to make or cause to be made investigations into the possibility of restarting the industrial undertaking of the 1st respondent (the Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) in the interest of the general public and particularly in the interest of productions of cotton textiles, under section 15A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, as amended by the Amending Act No. 72 of 1971. 2. The fact giving rise to the application by way of judge's summons may be stated : The Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st respondent-company'), a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913, used to run textile mills situate at Delise Road, Parel, Bombay. It ceased production and actually stopped its business since about 18th October, 1967. On a creditor's petition...
Tag this Judgment!Sundrabai Ramchandra Rabade and anr. Vs. Anandrao Haribhau Rabade and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom301; (1973)75BOMLR198
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. This appeal in execution proceedings raises an interesting question as to whether if no notice under Order 21 Rule 66 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is served on the judgment-debtor, are the subsequent proceedings resulting in a sale void or voidable. Since on this question there is a conflict of opinion not only among the various High Courts in the country but even between the two learned Judges of this Court, the appeal has been referred to this Division Bench.2. The few facts giving rise to the appeal preferred by the heirs of the original decree-holder may be stated. A final decree for partition of joint family properties was passed on 25th of July 1962 in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1948 and under the decree inter alia, defendant No.3 one Haribhau, was directed to pay Rs. 29,041.85 to defendant No.1 Ramchandra, Haribhau died on 21-7-1964 leaving behind him three sons, Gajanan, Shamrao and Anandrao (respondent No.1). On 14-10-1964 the decree-holder Ramchandr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›