Mumbai Court April 1973 Judgments
Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar and anr. Vs. Ananda Krishna Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom52; (1974)76BOMLR368; 1974MhLJ548
ORDER1. These revision applications can be disposed of together as the question in both of them is the same. In a suit filed by the plaintiff in each of the cases the defendants inter alia pleaded that they were tenants of the suit land which is agricultural land and in both these cases in view of the pleadings of the defendants one of the issues raised by the Court was 'Do the defendants prove that they were in possession of the suit land as tenants prior to the transaction dated March 27, 1967'? Notwithstanding the fact that such an issue was raised in both the matters the learned Judge passed an order that 'this issues regarding tenancy need not be referred to the Mamlatdar for his finding at this stage. It shall be referred to the Mamlatdar for his finding if the defendants produce some prima facie evidence to show that they were in possession of the suit lands as tenants prior to the transaction in question'. He directed that in the meantime the hearing of the suit shall be procee...
Tag this Judgment!Bhujangrao Ganpati Vs. Sheshrao Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom104; (1973)75BOMLR772; 1973MhLJ1034
ORDER1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani, reversing the order of Mr. S.Y. Gambhir, Civil Judge (J. D.). Sailu, dated the 30th of August 1969 refusing to grant extension of time under a decree for specific performance on the ground that the Court had no power to do so. It is not necessary for the purpose of this application to state the facts prior to the decree. Suffice it to say that, on the 30th March 1968, a conditional decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the present respondent which was in the following terms :-'Defendant shall execute a sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall deposit in Court the costs for the execution and the registration of the sale deed within one month from this date. In case the plaintiff fails to deposit the costs in Court defendant shall execute the sale deed and get it registered. In case of failure of the defendant so to do, plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Nandkishore Fakirchand Sevak Vs. Nanji Raghoji Mali and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Bom354; 1973MhLJ748
1. The petitioner is a tenure-holder of survey number 125/1, area 18 acres 37 gunthas, land revenue Rs. 28.37 of village Tembhurna, taluq Khamgaon, district Buldana. A partition was effected on 30-6-1959 between the petitioner, his brother and father and along with the other property the aforesaid survey number was allotted to the share of the petitioner. His name was also duty mutated in the record of rights. The petitioner was a minor having been born on 11-10-1956 on the date of partition.2. Respondent No. 1 Ninaji was cultivating survey number 125/1 as a tenant. Suo Motu proceedings for considering the question whether Ninaji, the tenant had become the owner of the property were started by the Additional Tahsildar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khamgaon. In these proceedings it was contended by the tenure-holder that he being a minor the property cannot be transferred in favour of the tenant. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that the suit field could be compulsorily trans...
Tag this Judgment!Virbala Sumant Lokhande Vs. Sumant Madhay Lokhande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom297; (1974)76BOMLR364; ILR1974Bom459
1. The appellant original applicant held filed a petition for divorcee against her husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The appellant claimed divorce on two distinct grounds. She prayed that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization thereof her husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce, a mensa et toro. She also claimed dissolution of marriage on the additional ground that since the solemnization of the marriage her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards.2. The respondent-husband resisted the application and denied the allegations about adultery, cruelty and desertion. After consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Extra Joint Judge at Poona came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner failed to establish the ground based upon adultery co...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Deshpande and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ45Bom
1. The petitioner are father and son. Together they constitute a partnership firm carrying on the business of insurance surveyors in Bombay. The respondents are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay who are charged with the administration of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Shops Act'). The petitioners have been called upon to register themselves under S. 7 of the Shops Act as a commercial establishments. The present petition has been filed for a writ direction or order prohibiting the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Shops Act against them. The petitioners allege that they carry on a professions and do not fall under the definition of 'commercial establishments' in S. 2(4) of the Shops Act and are, therefore, not liable to register themselves under S. 7 of the said Act. 2. The petitioners state that their firm which is known as Desai and Deshpande was established in 1956 by petitioner No. 1 and one J. R. Desai. J. R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Shantaram Nadkarni Vs. S.E. Sukhtankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: (1973)IILLJ558Bom; 1974MhLJ83
Kantawala, C.J.1. Damodar Shantaram, Nadkarni, the petitioner, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of Vimadalal, J., dated July 3, 1969, whereby he dismissed the petition that was filed by the petitioner. At the material time the petitioner was employed as a tutor in Chemical Pathology in the Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Topiwala National Medical College and he worked in that capacity until he was dismissed from service in October, 1964. In the month of July, 1963 certain irregularities were suspected in the affairs of the Stores Department of the Pathology Department and investigation was started and, in the course of the investigation, certain statements were recorded including that of the petitioner. After completion of the preliminary enquiry on December 28, 1963, G. W. Shiveshwarkar, Officer on Special Duty, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold a departmental enquiry. On January 4, 1964, the petitioner was suspended. On or after February 4, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapati Gopal Patil and ors. Vs. Shankar Rama Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom106; (1973)75BOMLR763; ILR1974Bom1085; 1973MhLJ1042
ORDER1. This civil Revision application raises an interesting point of law as to whether an appeal in a suit for partition of joint Hindu family property abates by reason of the death of one of the appellants, pending the appeal. The genealogical tree of the family is to be found in the order of the learned Assistant Judge under revision, and the position as it emerges from it is that the three plaintiffs who are the sons of Rama would, between them, be entitled to a half-share and the first three defendants who are the sons of Gopal would between themselves, be entitled to the remaining half share in the joint family property, It may be mentioned that defendants Nos. 4 to 17 were joined as formal parties, as being co-shares in some of the suit properties. The three plaintiffs filed this suit as a suit for partition of the properties of the joint Hindu family claiming that, on such partition, they were entitled to a half share therein. The trial Court dismissed the suit o 20th April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Ratanshi Lodaya Vs. Manabai Jethabhai Lodaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom88; (1974)76BOMLR304
Nathwani, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal by the original petitioner-husband against the decree of Mr. Justice Gatne in appeal confirming the decree of the City Civil Court. Bombay, dismissing his petition for divorce and raises a point of importance and interest arising out of judicial separation, namely, whether desertion by a spouse on which ground a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the original petitioner spouse under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) continues unless the original respondent spouse makes efforts to resume cohabitation and constitutes a wrong which would disentitle the spouse so failing to get the relief of divorce on ground of non-resumption of cohabitation, and involves construction of Sections 10(2), 13(1A), 23(1)(a) of the Act.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is the husband and was married to the respondent wife according to Hindu FDIC rites on Dec. 16, 1956 at Bombay. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur Vs. Regional Director, Regional O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: (1974)ILLJ453Bom; 1973MhLJ1037
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Employees' Insurance Court, Nagpur, under S. 81 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Act. The question referred is as follows :'Whether the term 'wages' as defined under S. 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 includes all the payments made for overtime work and, if so, is the employer's special contribution payable on such an amount ?'The above referred question arose out of an application filed by the Shivraj fine Art Litho Works, Subhash Road, Nagpur-2 hereinafter referred to as the employer, under S. 75 read with S. 76 of the Insurance Act, disputing its liability to pay Rs. 1,787 on account of employer's special contribution in respect of the remuneration paid to the workers who had worked overtime. The Insurance Inspector had found that during the period July, 1966 of June, 1967, a sum, of Rs. 71,466.53 was paid on account of overtime work to the employees i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›