Mumbai Court February 1973 Judgments
Nanavati and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. R.C. Dutt and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1973
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas91(Bom)
Deshmukh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original petitioners, who are a private limited company, against the order of dismissal of their writ petition by the learned single judge of this court. The facts that give rise to this appeal may be briefly noted : 2. The appellant is a private limited company and its main business is selling various commodities on commission basis or commercially dealing in many articles. Respondent No. 5 is a public limited company which manufactures many chemicals amongst which are the three articles, viz., sodium hydrosulphite, caustic soda lye, chlorine and its by-products (excluding hydrochloric acid). 3. The appellant-company was appointed as sole selling agent for the three commodities manufactured by the respondent No. 5-company by a written agreement dated November 28, 1961, exhibit A to the petition, operative with effect from 1st July, 1961. The agreement covers a period of five years. It appears that the appellant-company was already selling the s...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas Tulsiram Brijwani Vs. the Commissioner, Poona Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom39; (1973)75BOMLR632; ILR1974Bom553; 1973MhLJ889
1. This is a revision application filed by the original plaintiff against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Poona, on 16th October 1970 holding that the plaintiff's suit stand withdrawn, without liberty to file a fresh suit. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff to challenge a notice issued by the defendant-Corporation cancelling his licence to carry on business. In the Written Statement, a plea was raised that the suit was not maintainable without the requisite statutory notice under Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Ct. In view a written application dated 16th October 1970 for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23, Rule 1 (2) of the code of Civil Procedure. On that application, the defendant's reply was endorsed in the usual manner stating, inter alia, that the defendant-Corporation did not press the point of want of notice under Section 487. On that, the learned Judge of the Court below made an...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Premlal Dalaya and ors. Vs. Akali Premaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom133; (1973)75BOMLR604
1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against an order passed by Judge Suresh of the Bombay City Civil Court on the 5th of April 1971 ordering the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The six plaintiffs and the 7th defendant are members of a joint and undivided Hindu family defendant No. 7 being the father of plaintiffs Nos.3 to 6. In the year 1953 defendant No. 7, and the plaintiffs' grandmother one Laxmibai, as well as Premlal the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and their uncle Kishanlal, purported to mortgage the suit property which is situated at Dadar in Bombay, and it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the said mortgage was executed without legal necessity and is not binding upon them. The said mortgage was transferred from time to time and further charges were created on the said property in respect of further advanc...
Tag this Judgment!The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR115
Nain, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing three orders exhs. F, H and I to the petition. The order exh. F is passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, on April 7, 1966. Exhibit H is an appellate order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, on October 25, 1966 and exh. I is an order dated November 1, 1968 passed by the Government of India in revision. In the said orders the authorities have held that if a foreign-going Indian cargo vessel loads coastal cargo at intermediate Indian ports for delivery at other Indian ports it is liable to pay customs duty on imported fuel and other consumable goods on board and is not exempt from such duty under Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The petitioners own 16 ships of which 13 are exclusively foreign-going vessels and the remaining 3 are coastal vessels. One of the ships owned by them is m.v. 'Jag Shanti'. It is registered as a foreign-going vessel. Its thir...
Tag this Judgment!The Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR47; [1974(29)FLR365]; (1974)IILLJ66Bom; 1974MhLJ646
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original defendant No. 1 against a decree of injunction passed by the City Civil Court and confirmed in appeal by the learned single Judge of this Court. Only two points of law are raised before us, but, in order to appreciate them, a few facts may be noted. 2. The dispute in the suit relates to the Motor Production Department in the Kurla Factory of defendant No. 1-Company known as 'Premier Automobiles Limited'. Originally, there were 425 workers in this department to which were added by about September, 1970, twenty-seven more workers who were learners. Long before this event, there was an incentive scheme in operation introduced by defendant No. 1 under an agreement dated August 5, 1964 with the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha of which plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are members. A certain scale of payment was contemplated under this agreement and this was an agreement under S. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947...
Tag this Judgment!Louise Dinshaw Cambata Vs. Dinshaw S. Cambata and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom82; (1973)75BOMLR532; 1973MhLJ1051
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by Judge Mehta of the Bombay City Civil Court on 24th July 1970 dismissing a Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner-wife on the 24th of April 1970 for payment pendent lite of a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in respect of her expenses of the proceeding, and for deposit of a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards the further costs of the proceeding.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are that the parties were married in Bombay on the 10th of May 1952 under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, which under Section 51(2)(a) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, must be deemed to have been a marriage solemnised under the latter Act. There are four children of the said marriage. On the 14th of November 1968, the petition out of which the present proceeding arises for divorce on the ground of desertion since the beginning of 1965, On a Notice of Motion taken out by her for interim custody, alimony, pendent lite maintenance of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Kasam Virani Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ514; 1974MhLJ34
ORDERShah, J.1. This criminal revision application filed by the accused challenges the order dated December 14, 1972, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolaba, confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, granting the complainant's -application requesting the Court to visit and inspect the alleged construction work carried on by the accused.2. The complainant is the Controller of Unauthorised Construction, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Thana. On October 25, 1972, he filed a private complaint with the Magistrate against the accused making the following allegations. The accused who is the owner and occupant of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 116/2 plus 5A in village Kalamboli, Taluka Panvel, undertook and carried out the unauthorised development of the said land without the permission of the competent authority. This unauthorised development was detected by the officers of the CIDCO in an incomplete state on December 22...
Tag this Judgment!indrayanibal and anr. Vs. the Collector of Nagpur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom58; ILR1974Bom546
Masodkar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Civil judge, Senior Division, Nagpur rejecting the claim of one Mahadeo a/o Mahavir Vaishya, since deceased, and represented by his legal representatives on record, made upon a reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.2. The property that was acquired was a house bearing Nos. 291, 291/12 and 292/2, owner and possessed by said Mahadeo. The acquisition was for purposes of Nagpur Corporation and for the improvement of Itwari Bhaji Market. Section 4 notification was issued on March 16, 1955, followed by Section 6 notification issued on October 19, 1955. The possession of the property is admittedly taken on December 15, 1964.3. Before the trial Court, the claimant sought to recover Rs. 19,000/- for the land and house and an additional claim of Rs. 14,000/- account of loss of rent at the rate of Rs.40/- per month for a period of 30 years. He further claimed expenses that he would be required to i...
Tag this Judgment!Shriniwas Dwarkadas Agarwal and anr. Vs. Sundarbal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom203; 1974MhLJ51
ORDER1. An interesting but important question relating to the statutory ownership that the tenant is entitled to possess under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act of 1958) and his right to get upon such transfer all the trees in a holding, has been raised in this petition.2. Certain facts may be noticed. The respondents 1 to 7 appear to be the lasses of Survey No. 204, area 12.38 acres, a field assessed to Rs. 30/- and situate at village Thugaon -Pruna of district Amravati, One Bhikamchand is the predecessor-in-title of these respondents. It appeals that on December 21, 1962, he made an offer to the land-holders who are the petitioners in this case for the purchase of the field under they Tenancy Act of 1958 at a statutory price. Mean-while the land-holders had taken proceedings for resumption of the land under that Act on the ground that they needed the same for personal cultivation. Those proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Parwat and 3 ors. Vs. Keshao Trimbak Jahagirdar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Bom262; 1973MhLJ451
Masodkar, J.1. This appeal has been field by the original defendants against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court dated 14th and 15th December, 1966, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Second Appeal No. 23 of 1961 and affirmed the decree for possession passed in favour of the original plaintiffs, the respondents herein, in First Appeal No.1 37 of 1960 by the Assistant Judge, Khamgaon.2. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed this suit praying for a decree for possession of the fields which, admittedly, were in the possession of the defendants. The material plea raised was than that suit field being survey Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of mouza Pingi-Jahagir, a village in Jalgaon taluq, were held from the former Government by the forefathers of the plaintiffs as a subsistence grant for the maintenance of the family of Jahagirdar in perpetituty governed by Class 1 of Rule III of the Bearer Inam Rules. These were owned and possessed by one Trimbak s/o Renukadas Jahagirdar in proprietary rig...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›