Mumbai Court January 1973 Judgments
Sheik Madar Vs. Bhagwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Bom333; 1973MhLJ606
ORDER1. At the time of admission of this special civil application, rule was limited only to the question regarding the power of the Tribunal to award costs of the revision and further to award the costs of the lower Courts also. The petition, therefore, is heard only to this limited point. The other questions being questions of fact and already been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal, no interference was thought necessary at the stage of admission. That question on merits, therefore, is not gone into and so far as the merits of the case are concerned, this special civil application must be taken to have been dismissed.2. The proceedings before the Revenue Courts arose on a reference made by the Civil Judge under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for brevity. 'The Tenancy Act'). The Tenancy Naib Tahsildar to whom the issue was referred by the Civil Court for determination, gave a finding that the defendant was a partner in cul...
Tag this Judgment!Thanhabai Jaivanta Ilag Vs. Dhodiram Pandurang Ilag and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom107; (1973)75BOMLR689; 1974MhLJ69
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the appellate decree passed by the learned district, Judge, Ahmednagar in proceedings arising out of Civil Suit No. 134 of 1962, The appellant had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of her right to take water of the well situate in Survey No. 246/3. According to the appellant she had 3/4 share in the well standing in survey No. 246/3. She had installed an engine at the well for irrigating the lands in her possession. While she was exercising her right to take water to the extent of her share on 28th November 1962 the defendants offered obstruction. Hence she filed the suit for declaration of her share and for permanent injunction to ensure peaceful enjoyment of her right to take water from the well. the appellant owns lands survey Nos. 246/1.' 244/- and 245/1B. According to the appellant she could irrigate all or any of these lands which were of her ownership.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who are co...
Tag this Judgment!Khivaraj Chhagniram Zavar and anr. Vs. Shivshankar Basappa Lingashetty ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom40; (1973)75BOMLR523; 1973MhLJ782
1. These appeals arise out of the original proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner holding enquiry under the Bombay Public Trustee Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to determine whether there was a public the properties of that rust a preliminary M.V. Paranjpe learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, the these appeals under clause (15) of the Letters Patent against the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court are filed without the leave of that judge. According to him, the proceedings before the District Court under Section 72 of the Act are proceedings in the nature of an appeal from the order and decision of the Charity Commissioner and as such the First Appeal heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court is a decision of this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the District Court given in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This being so, the relevant provisions of the Letters Patent clause (15) will be attracted and both ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mithailal Dalsinghar Singh Vs. S.V. Joag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR1; 1974MhLJ220
Nain, J.1. The petitioners are the President and the Secretary respectively of Arya Samaj, Matunga, Bombay 19. The said Arya Samaj inter alia conducts a secondary school known as 'Shri Dayanand Balak Vidyalaya' at Matunga. Respondent No. 2 was the Principal of the said school and was found to be guilty of certain charges by an Inquiry Committee, Respondent No. 2 appealed under Rule 77 of the Secondary Schools Code of the Government of Maharashtra to respondent No. 1 the Deputy Director of Education, Greater Bombay, who by his order dated March 28, 1972 ordered respondent No. 2 to be reinstated. The petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing- the said order. The facts leading to this petition are briefly as follows:2. On April 24, 1971 the Management of the School (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Management') issued to respondent No. 2 a show cause notice containing three charges against him viz. (a) th...
Tag this Judgment!Esso Standard Inc. Vs. Udharam Bhagwandas Japanwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1973
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas16(Bom)
Vaidya, J. 1. This is an application under section 561 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant is a public limited company by name, Esso Standard Inc., registered in the State of Delaware, U.S.A., and having its branch office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay-20. On February 23, 1972, respondent No. 1, Udharam Bhagwanda Japanwalla, as a constituted Attorney of Venus Polish, filed a complaint in the court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, alleging that, (1) the applicant, Esso Standard company which was described in the complaint as accused No. 1, (2) one Z. A. Merchant, an officer of the company who was described as accused No. 2, (3) one R. K. Gupta, a sales officer of the company, described as accused No. 3, (4) and R. D. Vyas, sales manager of the company, described as accused No. 4, and (5) C.B. Thomas, general manager of the company, described as accused No. 5, committed offences under sections 420, 417 read with sections 34, 109 and 114 of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Rama Chaugule Vs. the Goodwill Bank Ltd., Miraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Bom342; (1973)75BOMLR561; 1973MhLJ960
Deshmukh, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the execution proceedings. The facts are no longer in dispute. The respondent-Bank as a plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 115 of 1949 against the appellant-defendant on the basis of a simple mortgage bond to enforce their debt by sale of a mortgaged property. This suit resulted in a final decree on 31-10-1949. It was an instalment decree payable by an annual instalment of Rs. 700. The first of such instalments was payable on 30th June, 1950 and regularly thereafter on the same date in the subsequent years. ON failure of payment of any two instalments, the entire decretal amount was due and payable. It appears that the first instalment was paid but thereafter there was no regular payment made within the time provided by the decree. Three Darkhast were given from time to time in 1955, 1958 and 1961. After Special Darkhast No. 48/61 was disposed of on 6-5-1962, the present Darkhast has been filed on February 7, 1963. It is out of this last Darkhast t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Shankar Hasabnis and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom300; (1974)76BOMLR347
Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by a Single Judge of this Court as it involves interpretation of some of the provisions of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (Bombay Act, No. LX of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In both the Courts below a decree for injunction has been passed against the State of Maharashtra restraining them from executing a claim notice Exhibit 71 for the amount of Rs. 3,801.41 P. As the Courts below have held that the plaintiff-respondent is not liable to pay the amount, the State of Maharashtra has filed this second appeal for obtaining an adjudication that under the provisions of the Act as well as the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). which applies to all the resumed lands as a result of the implementation of the Act, In Madras in the position of the plaintiff would always be liable to pay the assessment. As this is a point of some importance, As this ...
Tag this Judgment!R.H. Muttoo and anr. Vs. Kasturbai Walchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1973
Reported in: [1987]166ITR392(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay) against the judgment and order of Thakkar J. dated October 10, 11, 1966, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 42 of 1965, whereby the learned judge set aside the order of the Commissioner dated August 12, 1964, refusing to entertain the revisional application of the respondent and further directing the Commissioner to dispose of the said revisional application in accordance with law. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated : The respondent (who was the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 42 of 1965) was the holder of 149 shares in Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. During the relevant years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, and March 31, 1960, the respondent adopted the valuation of the said shares at their break-up values with paid-up capital and reserves, as there was no market quotation for the same. The Wealth-tax Officer, Company Circle I (3), Bombay, by his separate...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwantrao and ors. Vs. Mirabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom60; ILR1974Bom522; 1973MhLJ931
1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, that is, the District Judge Chanda, in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1962, decided on 14-2-1963 allowing the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant and confirming the lower court's decree under appeal with some modifications. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the judgment of the appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in toto.2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit which was based on a mortgage. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that original defendant Ramakrishna took a cash loan of Rs. 4,200/- after admitting, the receipt of previous loan to the extent of Rs. 800/- and executed the suit mortgage. The agreement was to pay interest at 18 percent per annum in case there was a decent per annum in case there was a default on the part of the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›