Mumbai Court August 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.
Khushal Gajananrao Vanjari Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom53; ILR1973Bom822; 1972MhLJ861
ORDER1. The petitioner asked for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to hold the elections of the Gram Panchayats Parsodi, Kharbi and Kondhi forthwith and also for quashing of the order dated 14-7-1972 of the respondent No.2. The petitioner further asked for directing the respondent No.2 to include the name of the petitioner in the voters list of the Panchayat Samiti, Shahpur Block.2. The petitioner is a resident of village Parsodi and also the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat of that place. This village Parsodi along with 10 other villages was included in the Nagpur Revenue District till 30th of April 1970. By a Government Notification dated 30th of April 1970, 10 villages from the Nagpur District including the village Parsodi were transferred to the Bhandara Revenue District. Subsequently by a Notification dated 28-3-1972 the limits of the Nagpur and Bhandara districts as constituted by sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act...
Mahadeo Maroti and anr. Vs. Ganpati Sousthan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom119; ILR1973Bom803
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred to the Division Bench is as follows :'Whether in the case of a lease for the year 1958-59, a landlord is entitled to recover rent from the tenant according to the agreement of lease, or whether the liability of the tenant is determined by the provisions of Section 11 of the Tenancy Act notwithstanding the agreement between the parties?'This question arises in these three second appeals in the following way:In Civil Suit No. 185 of 1961 the plaintiff claimed that the appellants-tenants had executed a lease-deed on 7th March 1958 agreeing to cultivate the field owned by the plaintiff during the year 1958-59 and Rs. 1,000/- were agreed to be paid as lease money on 1st December 1958. A sum of Rs. 141 was paid by the defendants and a suit for the balance along with interest was, therefore, filed. The main defence with which we are concerned is that since the tenants were lessees for the year 1958-59 the plaintiff could not claim more tha...
Marutrao Bhaurao Shelke Vs. Akbaralli Noorbhai Bohori
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR35; 1974MhLJ239
Vaidya, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of a decree for possession passed in favour of the landlords-respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner was their tenant in respect of house No. 274, Ward No. 9 situate at Baramati. The suit was filed on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent for more than six months and the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated March 25, 1967.2. The suit was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds that the plaintiffs were demanding more than the agreed rent of Rs. 47.25, that the agreed rent itself was excessive and the standard rent should be determined, that the notice terminating his tenancy was received by him on April 1, 1967, that on April 28, 1967 he sent a cheque for Its. 1,015 drawn on Poona Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Baramati, by registered post to plaintiff No. 1 along with the reply to the notice, that plaintiff No. 1 refused to accept the de...
Laxminarayan Deepchand Maheshwari Vs. Bhiku Punjaji Lewa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR83; 1973MhLJ489
Chandurkar, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded.] Two questions are raised by Shri Mandlekar appearing on behalf of the appellants in this appeal. The first question is that exh. D-29 should not have been permitted to be brought on record and the second question, which is the only substantial question, which has been argued, is that additional evidence could not be admitted in a second appeal since, according to the learned Counsel, the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, are not applicable to second appeals.2. So far as the first contention is concerned, we have already pointed out that exh. D-29 which was the original Gat-book was sent for in order to prove one of the documents which was1 allowed to be produced by Deshmukh J. as additional evidence. This was the right hand page of the Gat-book of which only the left hand page was filed on record. This document which was produced with the application as additional evidence was h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›