Mumbai Court June 1973 Judgments
Shah Jethalal Lalji Vs. Khimji M. Bhujpuria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR270
Joshi, J.1. The petitioner (original complainant) whose complaint has been dismissed, mainly on the ground of want of jurisdiction and being bad in law for misjoinder of charges and persons, by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, who consequently discharged the accused, has come in revision.2. It appears that the complainant, a merchant of status and repute, was the member of Shri Cutchi Visha Osval Deravasi Jain Mahajan, whereas accused No. 1 was its President. Accused No. 3 was the Honorary Secretary and accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were the members. There was also another Mahajan, namely, Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal Sthanakvasi Jain Mahajan. The office bearers of the Mahajans of the two communities referred to above, jointly issued an appeal to the members of the communities on January 11, 1972, that more than 650 persons be not fed at the receptions of the marriage ceremonies. This appeal had no legal sanctity. The complainant celebrated his daughter's marriage on May 28...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Deshmukh Vs. Ganesh Krishnaji Khare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom82; (1974)76BOMLR405; 1974MhLJ628
Nathwani, J.1. This revision application by the original defendant tenant arises out of restitution proceedings and is referred to the Division bench as there are conflicting decisions of this Court and other High Courts on the question whether an application for restitution of property taken possession of in execution of an exparte under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure fails within Section 144 of the said Code. The short facts areas follows:-2. In an ejectment suit field by the Respondent Landlord against the Petitioner - Tenant in the Small Cause Court at Bombay to recover possession of a room in a buildings situate at Kurla (hereinafter referred to as the premises) the landlord obtained an ex parte decree on February 4,1971 and in execution of the decree obtained possession of the premises on February 16 1971. On 17th February the tenant applied to the trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the summons was not served on him and also prayed f...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Madhaorao Gampawar and ors. Vs. Maltibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom46; ILR1974Bom1011; 1973MhLJ851
1. The appellants are the defendants who are the heirs of one Madhaorao Gampawar. The plaintiff brought a suit for possession of a house situated at Chanda basing her claim on a document which is styled as a conditional sale deed executed by Madhaorao on 18-6-1953 for a consideration of Rupees 9,00/-. The terms of the deed were that in case the defendants father Madhaorao paid back the amount of Rs. 9,00/- in one year, the plaintiff should execute a deed of reconveyance and deliver back the possession of the house property to him; but if the defendant's father failed to pay back the amount of Rs. 9,000/- as agreed, the conditional sale deed would be an absolute one and the defendant's father would lose and forfeit his right of getting a deed of reconveyance. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's father had paid only rs. 1,600/- by 20-6-1954 which was the last date fixed for getting a deed of reconveyance and that her conditional sale deed had become an absolute one and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Zilla Parishad, Bhandara Vs. Agricultural Produce Marker Committee, Ti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom128; 1974MhLJ378
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner, Zilla parishad, Bhandara, constituted under section 8 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 has filed this writ petition challenging the notification issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Maharashtra State Poona-1 dated 16-10-1970 and 15-11-1971 issued under section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Act No. XX of 1964), hereinafter referred to an the Act. Under the Central Provinces and Berar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1935 (Act No. XXIX of 1935), hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1935, a notification under section 3 was issued by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, dated 10-10-61 declaring the grain market at Tirora, in Gondia tahsil of Bhandara district to be a market for sale and purchase of agricultural produce and laying down the limits of the said market, which was to include the area described as a market year, the market ...
Tag this Judgment!New Grand High Class Bakery Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR359; 1974MhLJ622
Apte, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the order made by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bombay in Application No. 9 of 1969 filed by the present appellant tinder Section 75(1)(g) of the Act for a declaration that the appellant concern was not governed by the provisions of the Act.2. The facts are shortly these:3. The appellant, M/s. New Grand High Class Bakery, is a partnership firm and carries on business of Bakery. Admittedly more than 20 persons are employed as employees in this Bakery. It manufactures breads and biscuits with the help of manual labour. It is not in dispute that there is an electric oven in the premises of the Bakery. According to the appellant, however, it does not make use of that oven but the ovens which are used for baking purposes are fired by wood. After the breads are prepared, they are wrapped in paper also by manual labour. Part of the loaves manufactured ar...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand thengumal Rajpal Vs. S.C. Gupte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR511
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner in the above special civil application under Article 226 of the Constitution, carries on business, inter alia, in denatured spirit in the name and style of Messrs. Rajpal Industries, at 23/24, Industrial Estate, Silvassa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Union Territory. In 1969, the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Excise Duty Regulation 1969, was promulgated. The charging section of that regulation was Section 12, which reads as follows:12. There shall be levied and collected, at such rates and in such manner as may be prescribed by or under this Regulation, not exceeding the rates set forth in Parts A and B of the Schedule, a duty of excise on all liquor manufactured in, or brought into, the territory:Provided that no such duty shall be levied on toddy when used for the manufacture of jaggery, vinegar, yeast or neera or when drunk as such.The Schedule is important for the purpose of determining the questions involved in this case. The said Schedule is as follows:THE SCHEDUL...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Khushal Dighe Vs. Kesharbai Damodhardas Chandak and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom192; 1974MhLJ291
ORDER1. A question of some impotence is raised by this petition upon the facts which are not in dispute.2. The petitioner is a tenant of field survey No. 12/1, having an area of 11.29 acres situate at Mouza Leha-Khurd, a village in Buldhana District. One parvatibai was the original Land-holder. She died on April 25, 1964. Respondents are the successors-in-title of Paravtibai and it is not in dispute that they are widows.3. Under the provisions of section 49-A of the Bomaby Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), proceedings were initiated before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for statutory conferment of ownership in favour of the tenants. By an order passed on September 30, 1966, that Tribunal held that as the successors-in-title of Parvatibai were both widows and thus being the landladies under disability, the ownership of the field could not be transferred in favour of the petitioner. An appeal was taken to the Deputy Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.R. Doiphode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR334
Vaidya, J.1. The short question which arises in the above three petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the Canteen Stores Department is an establishment engaged in any industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government within the meaning of Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.2. Special Civil Application No. 1189 of 1968 is directed against an order passed in favour of respondent No. 1 by the II Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bombay, on February 26, 1968, wherein the Authority held that the Canteen Stores Department is not a Government undertaking and as such the Payment of Bonus Act was applicable, and awarded the minimum bonus of 4 per cent, of the salary earned by the employee, respondent No. 2 during the accounting year 1965-66. The order is challenged in the said Special Civil Application by the Union of India, which was not a party to the proceedings before the Payment of Wages...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Waman Lalji Pimple
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom99; ILR1974Bom1005
1. These are two cross appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of 4 acres 13 gunthas of land out of survey No. 8 of Unmarked. A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4-8-1961 and finally a notification under S. 6 was issued on 8-9-1961 acquiring 4 acres 13 gunthas of land out of survey No. 8 of mouza Unmarked by the Government for the purposes of a milk scheme. In proceedings for determination of compensation the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 1,400/- per acre and coupled with compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, the total compensation awarded to the owner of the land was Rs. 6,963.25 P. The claimant-owner made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation at Rs. 5,000/- per acre. This reference was dealt with by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola , It appears that before the trial court 8 documents were filed on behalf of the claimant and tow ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Lata Mangeshk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR696(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. Since we are of the view that the question raised and sought to be referred to this court by the income-tax department are questions of fact depending purely on appreciation of the evidence, we feel that the rule ought to be discharged. 2. The assessee, who is an acknowledged play-back singer, submitted her returns of income for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65, disclosing professional receipts of Rs. 1,43,650, Rs. 1,38,251, and Rs. 1,19,850, respectively. The returns were principally based upon the diaries which were maintained by the assessee in which proper entries were made in respect of receipts received by her for the professional work done by her as a play-back singer. From the diaries, M/s. Ghanekar & Co., a firm of chartered accountants, used to write regular accounts. The assessee had produced confirmatory letters from all the producers regarding the correctness of payments shown to have been made by them. The Income-tax Officer came across...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »