Mumbai Court October 1973 Judgments
Ramesh Himmatlal Shah Vs. Harsukh Jhadavji Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR375
Bhole, J.1. An important point of law under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Societies Act') arises in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by my learned brother Vaidya J. in the appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissing the Chamber Summons taken out by him. An ex parts decree for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and odd was passed in the suit by the decree-holder, on March 31, 1970. The decree-holder then took out a warrant of attachment of Flat No. 9 in the building belonging to Paresh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Society registered under the Societies Act. The flat was attached on August 8, 1970 after serving the warrant on the judgment-debtor in the jail at Rajkot. He appears to have been convicted in a criminal case and was, therefore, suffering imprisonment at Rajkot. The decree-holder thereafter applied for the sale of the said flat and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas P. Chitrigi Vs. Monica Pascol Miranda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom245; (1974)76BOMLR394; 1974MhLJ539
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This matter is referred to the Full Bench by Vadiya. J. by his judgment and order dated April 23, 1971. The question which requires to be decided by the Full Bench is not framed but he has observed that in view of certain conflict of decisions he felt that the rights of landlords and tenants in suits or appeals pending on the date on which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made applicable, should be determined.2. Ramdas Chitrigi, the petitioner, is the tenant of room No. 8 in a building called 'Monica House' situate within the limits of the Gram Panchayat of Divanman near Bassein in Thana District. On January 20, 1968 the landlady, respondent No. 1 served a notice upon the petitioner terminating his tenancy. On April 27, 1968, respondent No. 1 filed a suit to recover possession of the premises from the petitioner. On March 31, 1970 a decree of eviction was passed against the petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Anklesaria Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR688
Vimadalal, J.1. This was a mammoth case in which an aggregate of over 50,000 documents were disclosed by the parties to the suit and the hearing which started on July 30, 1973, has proceeded for forty-five working days by the time the evidence of all sides was closed yesterday. It relates to a claim of several lakhs by clearance contractors against the Government of India in respect of a contract relating to foodgrains and a cross-claim by the Government against those contractors for certain deductions for breach of their obligations under the contract. It may be stated that the hearing of these two suits proceeded as a consolidated hearing under an order passed by my brother Nain on November 29, 1972. When the evidence was closed yesterday, the question arose as to the order in which the learned Counsel should address me.2. As the plaintiffs to Suit No. 432 of 1967 (the clearance contractors) had exercised the option under Order XVIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of reservin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›