Mumbai Court November 1973 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.
Lila Kishenchand Jaisinghani Vs. Odhavji Popatlal Ahya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR523
Sapre, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the tenant, a question about the scope and construction of Section 11 and Section 11A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arises. That question, in short is whether an application for fixation of standard rent is barred if an earlier application for similar purpose had been dismissed for default without being decided on merits.2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in the suit premises. The premises are a block of five rooms on the first floor of a building known as Sharad Villa, Plot No. 130, Old Khar, Bombay. The premises were let out to the petitioner on May 17, 1953 on a rent of Rs. 150 per month. The petitioner filed an application bearing R.A. No. 113 of 1954 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 11 of the Act for the fixation of standard rent of the premises. After the respondent appeared and filed his repl...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Associated Cement Compan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR650(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal by the said reference has posed the following question for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 2,09,459, or any portion thereof, incurred by the company in the accounting period relevant to the assessment period 1959-60 was allowable as deduction in determining the profits of the company for the assessment year 1959-60 ?' 2. In order to understand and decide the point involved, a few facts may be stated : The assessee is the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., owning a chain of factories all over the country manufacturing cement. The assessment year in question is the year 1959-60 and the corresponding previous year is the year ended on July 31, 1958. The assessee-company has one of its cement factories at Shahabad (situate at present in District Gulbarga in th...
Dhiraj Lal Mohan Lal Kathewadi and ors. Vs. Ranchhod Balaram Nayak and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom256; (1974)76BOMLR189
1. An interesting point arises in this appeal and that is whether the adhesive stamps on a document can be cancelled under Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act only by drawing one line on them. This point arises in the following circumstances :2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, has filed a suit against the respondents-orig. defendants on the basis of a promissory note dated 18-6-55 showing four revenue stamps. Two are fixed above and two below. On the upper two there is a signature of defendant No.1 and on the lower two there is a big line with the same link, in which the signature was written. Except for this line there is no writing at all on the two stamp fixed below. The Civil Judge (J. D.), Nandurbar in whose Court the appellant-plaintiff has filed this suit held that the suit was not maintainable because the promissory note on the basis of which the suit was filed was inadmissible in evidence. It is on this preliminary point that he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. That or...
Mahadeo Amrut Gajbhiye Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1075; 1974MhLJ164
ORDERChandurkar, J.1. The question which arises in this revision application is whether a bond executed by sureties alone can be forfeited even though the accused who has been released on bail has himself not executed a bond as contemplated by Section 499 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question arises on the following facts.2. Proceedings under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started against one Arjun son of Lala in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek. Arjun, who was in custody had applied to the Magistrate that he should be released on his personal bond. This application was rejected. Thereafter, on 10-8-1971 the present applicant filed an application accompanied by an affidavit that he was willing to stand surety for Arjun and that Arjun should be released on bail. The proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate show that the Magistrate had passed an order accepting the bail bond executed by the present applicant. The order-sheet its...
Sayed Abdul Khair Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR390; 1974MhLJ579
Vaidya, J.1. The short point to be decided in this Criminal Revision Application, filed by accused No. 3, Sayed Abdul Khair, who is prosecuted along with others under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for running a brothel, under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) and for procuring the girls at serial Nos. 4 to 17 in the charge-sheet for the purposes of prostitution, under Section 5(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, is as to whether the learned Presidency Magistrate was right in rejecting an application for making a reference to this Court on the point raised on behalf of the accused that Sections 15(4) and 16(1) are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as they make a discrimination between a girl and woman.2. By raising such a frivolous point, this ease is kept pending from December 7, 1971, when the charge-sheet was filed, till now. The point sounds fantastic in the mouth of a person charged with running...
Sayed Abdul Khair Vs. Babubhai Jamalbhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1337
ORDERVaidya, J.1. The short point to be decided in this Criminal Revision Application, filed by accused No. 3, Sayed Abdul Khair, who is prosecuted along with others under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for running a brothel, under Sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) and for procuring the girls at serial Nos. 4 to 17 in the charge-sheet for the purpose of prostitution, under Section 5 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, is as to whether the learned Presidency Magistrate was right in rejecting an application for making a reference to this Court on the point raised on behalf of the accused that Sections 15 (4) and 16 (1) are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as they make a discrimination between a girl and woman.2. By raising such a frivolous point, this case is kept pending from December 7, 1971, when the charge-sheet was filed, till now. The point sounds fantastic in the mouth of a person charged wit...
Sushilbai Nagesh Chandorkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom106; (1974)76BOMLR540
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The question that arises for consideration before the Full Bench is whether under the provisions of Sections 19 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act No.27 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act' ) a landlord is entitled to resume for personal cultivation only half or whole of the surplus delimited land held from him by the person into whose holding enquiry is being held under Section 18 of the Ceiling Act? 2. For the purposes of this case we propose to confine our attention only to the facts existing in Special Civil Application No.282 of 1968. Mahadeo Maruti Boravake, respondent No.2 is a tenant holding various pieces of land for agricultural cultivation. He is the aggregate held 157 acres and 27 gunthas. The lands held by him were of more than one class and the total area held by him when converted into a corresponding area of dry crop land under the provisions of the Ceiling Act admeasured 301 acres ...
Rikhabchand Mohanlal Surana Vs. the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR748
Mukhi, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision in Second Appeal No. 1162 of 1963 dated August 6, 1970, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff decree-holder, who may be hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant' or 'the judgment-creditor.2. In order to appreciate the point which has been raised in this Letters Patent Appeal, it is necessary to notice some of the facts with relevant dates.3. It would appear that the appellant Rikhabchand Mohanlal Surana supplied certain goods to the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company' or the 'judgment-debtor') and as the sale price of the said goods remained unpaid by the respondent-company, the appellant was constrained to file a suit for a sum of Rs. 3141-13-3 and a decree for Rs. 2219-5-6 was ultimately passed on July 8, 1960, against the respondent-company and future interest at 4 per cent, per annum on Rs. 1845-14-6 fr...
A.K. Porbunderwala and Sons Vs. Gulam HussaIn Alibhai Nathani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom288; (1974)76BOMLR400; 1974MhLJ594
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, making absolute a notice of motion in terms of prayer (a) with a modification.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these: The plaintiffs respondents filed S. C. Suit No. 6798 of 1971 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing or otherwise removing the suit premises, namely Stall in Shop No. 3 on ground floor situated in house No. 19, Parsi Bazar Street, Bombay and/or from encroaching upon and/or entering upon and/or in any manner disturbing the plaintiffs' quiet and peaceful possession of the suit premises.3. The allegations in the plaint on which the relief was founded are these: The defendants are monthly tenants in respect of the shop No. 3, including a Stall admeasuring approximately 51/2' x 51/2' situated at house No. 19, Parsi Bazar Street. Bombay. The plaintiffs are the sub-tenants of that Stall which for brevity's sake is referred to in the plain...
Bapusaheb Balasaheb Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom143; (1974)76BOMLR455; 1974MhLJ698
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question that has been referred to us for our decision by the Division Bench is as follows:'Whether the Officers on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notifications dated 11th March, 1969 are Courts within the meaning of the Contemplated of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act'.2. The question arises in these circumstances: Respondent No. 3 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 16 are the members. Triennial election to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 was held on 18-11-1970 under the Election Rules framed in that behalf at which two of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were the contesting candidates. The result of that election was declared on 19-11-1970 in the General Body Meeting of respondent No. 3 held on the date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 held on that date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were declared elected ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›