Mumbai Court July 1973 Judgments
islam Ali Vs. Panchavat Samiti, Telhara and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom68; 1973MhLJ867
Padhye, J. 1. This petition seeks the quashing of the resolution of the respondent No. 1, Annexure 4 and the orders of the respondent No. 2 at Annexures 5 and 7. It also seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents 2 and 3 from issuing any directions which will have the effect of disturbing the status quo of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner arises in this way.2. The petitioner Mir Islamali was an elected member of the Panchayat Samiiti, Telhara from Hiwarkhed Panchayats Electoral College for a term of 5 years having been elected in the year 1967. After the establishment of a market committee for the market area of Telhara Block within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti, Telhara, a representative of the Panchayat Samiti, within the area of the market committee had to be sent to the market committee. The Panchayat Samiti, Telhara being within its jurisdiction, the Panchayat Samiti, Telhara decided to send the petitioner as its representative to the market ...
Tag this Judgment!Valiram Lakhani Vs. S.M. Kuray and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom295; (1974)76BOMLR176; 1974MhLJ374
Vaidya, J.1. The above special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay, dated April 18, 1973, setting aside the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, for execution of an award passed in the proceedings under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act, by consent on November 15, 1969. The order of the Divisional Joint Registrar is challenged on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the certificate to execute the award as decree of the Civil Court.2. A few relevant facts may be stated briefly as follows:-The petitioner filed an arbitration case against respondent No.3 under Section 91 of the of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960. The case was refereed to the Officer on Special Duty, Bombay, who passed an award in accordance with the consent terms arrived at between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsabai Nathudas and ors. Vs. Narayan Ajabrao Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom72; 1974MhLJ28
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He had filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 919.41 with interest on the basis of a promissory note dated 7-6-1958, admittedly executed by the defendant. The averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint only made out a case of cash consideration having been paid to the defendant at the time of the execution of the promissory note. He claimed Rs. 900/- as principal, Rs. 18- by way of interest from 11-4-1961 to 11-6-1961, and Rs. 1.41 P. as notice charges. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note, but according to him, no consideration was paid in cash. His story was that one Rambhau son of Bhabhutrao who was a minor, had to pay three instalments according to a scheme framed by the Debt Conciliation Board for repayment of the debts of the plaintiff. According to him, the repayment was to be made in instalments of Rs. 300- each due on 15-3-1956, 15-3-1957 and 15-3-1958, but Rambhau, who was a close relation of the def...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Sheku Shinde Vs. Shiva Deorao Jamale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR267
Apte, J.1. This is an appeal by original defendant No. 1 which arises in a suit filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 against the present appellant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for a declaration that the sale-deed executed jointly by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and Maruti, the uncle of respondent No. 3, was not binding on the 1/5th share of each of the three plaintiffs and for the consequential relief of possession of their share.2. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent No. 3 and respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are their sons. These five respondents along with Maruti, the uncle of respondent No. 3, formed a joint Hindu family. The suit property belonged to this joint family. On September 30, 1957, respondent No. 3, the father, along with his eldest son Bhimrao, respondent No. 4, and his uncle Maruti executed a deed of sale in respect of this property in favour of the appellant. It is not in dispute that at the time this sale-deed was executed, respondent No. 1 Shiva and his another brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnabai Vs. Survabhan Sekharam Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom142; 1974MhLJ183
ORDER1. the present peritioner Jamnabai claims to be the successor of one Deokabai, who died on February 1. 1966, Said deokanai was the tenure holder of survey No. 121/1 and survey No. 122. of village Kandli, district Amarland was leased to Suryabhan, the present respondent, and further that the lease of Suryabhan was governed by the provisions of section 58(I) (c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act).2. Jamnabai gave notice on 16-5-1966 and applied for possession on September 30, 1967.3. This application has been found to be barred by time, as having been filed after one year from the death of original landlady Deokabai, i.e., February 1, 1966. All the authorities under the provisions of the act have concurred in this view.4. To find out limitation so as to non-suit the present petitioner, provisions of sub-section (2) (B) of section 38 of the Act have been applied. It is found that this sub-section and the provisions cont...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Kaluram Jadhav Vs. Narayandas Badridas Rathi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom189; 1974MhLJ251
ORDER1. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises, being house No. 9/857, located in Pratap chouk Amravati. He purchased the same for valuable consideration on January 27, 1967 from the original landlady one Dhapuabi widow of Deorao. The respondent No. 1 Narayandas was inducted as a tenant prior to the date of purchase and the present petitioner moved an application against him under the provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereafter called the Order), Seeking permission to determine the lease of Narayandas under Clauses 13 (3) (I) (ii) and (iii) of the Order. To this application he also added respondent No. 2 Ratabla Aggarwal alleging that he was inducted by the tenant without any written permission from the landlord.2. It does appear that both these respondents were properly served. Only respondent No. 1 Narayandas chose to file written statement. respondent No. 2 i.e. Ratanlal did not file any statement before the Rent control authority a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narayana Pillai Vs. T.V. Rangarajan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom97; (1973)75BOMLR775; 1974MhLJ352
ORDER1. It is a matter of regret that this petition has to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay.2. The facts are somewhat peculiar in the sense that the petition was filed as early as the 26th August 1971 and the order impugned is dated the 4th of August 1971, so that it could never be said that the petition was filed after any delay. But it is to be noticed that in this particular case the subsequent event demonstrate gross delay on the part of the petitioner. 3. Some of the relevant dates may be noticed. The petition was lodged on the 26th August 1971. An ex parte application for admission of Writ Petition was made by the petitioner on the 28th of August 1971, when the matter was placed before Chandrachud. J. and the petition was adjourned obviously on the request of the petitioner to enable to petitioner to consider an amendment of the petition. I am told that the only amendment contemplated was as to whether the Union of India or the then chairman of the Atomic Energy Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Kishandas Dilberdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR638(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following two questions are referred for our determination at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a set-off in respect of the loss determined under section 10 of the Act including unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 37,103 relating to assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and pertaining to the business carried on by him as sole proprietor against his share of income for assessment years 1951-60 and 1960-61 from the same business converted into partnership firms, consisting of himself and his sons 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a set-off in respect of the loss determined under section 10 of the Act including therein unabsorbed development rebate of Rs. 65,484 relating to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 a...
Tag this Judgment!Bapu Sitaram Adsule Vs. Appa Mhadgonda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR265; 1974MhLJ497
Kania, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 1961 referring the issue as to the tenancy of the respondents in the suit land to the Tahsildar, Shirol.2. The dispute in this suit relates to land admeasuring 21 acres 5 gunthas out of survey No. 60 at village Kavathesar in Shirol taluka. A long history has been narrated in the revisional petition about the litigation pertaining to this land. It is not necessary to go into this history. It appears that the suit land originally belonged to one Bala Maharaj. There were prolonged disputes and litigation about this land and ultimately on April 4, 1961 the father of the petitioners took possession of the suit land through the Mamlatdar, Shirol and a Kabjepatti was executed. The case of the petitioners is that they and their father were obstructed in the enjoyment of this land by the respondents on June 22, 1961 and hence the father o...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR334(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference as many as 10 questions have been referred to this court for its opinion, some at the instance of the assessee and some at the instance of the department and the basic or primary facts out of which these several questions arise may be stated thus : There is a public limited company called the Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., which carries on the business of supplying electrical energy, originally to Bulsar, Bhiwandi and Belgaum. On 1st April, l951, it took over two other electric supply companies known as Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Jalgaon Electric Supply Co. Ltd. under separate amalgamation agreements sanctioned by this court by two orders dated 20th July, 1951. Copies of the orders sanctioning the amalgamation together with agreements of amalgamation in the case of each have been annexed as annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. also purchased the undertakings with all the assets minus certain asset...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »