Mumbai Court August 1973 Judgments
Habib Ahmed Khudabax Vs. Abdul Kabur Rehmanji Godiwala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom41; (1974)76BOMLR427; 1974MhLJ812
Nathwani, J.1. This Revision Application by one Habib Ahmad Khudabax who had obtained by the Ist respondent against the 2nd respondent is referred to a Division Bench by Mr., Justice Vimadlal as he tough that there was a conflict of decisions of single judges of this Court on the point, namely, whether an appeal lies at a Bench of the Presidency small Cause Court at Bombay from an order made by a single judge of that Court under Order XXI, Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The first respondent is the owner of a property situate at Victoria Garden second respondent was a monthly tenant of a shop on the ground floor of the said property at a rent of Rs.50/-Per month. In 1962 the first respondent ( original plaintiff) filed a suit , R.A.E. Suit No. 257 of 1962 against the second respondent to recover possession of the said shop in the Small (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (No.LVII of 1947), (hereinafter refereed to as the Rent Act), and April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Kadamma Anjanappa and anr. Vs. the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Bombay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom49; (1974)76BOMLR330; 1974MhLJ558
Bhasme, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay. The petitioners are the parent of one Adivappa, who died in a motor accident. The petitioners filed an application for compensation on 6th October 1960. This application was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as the Tribunal was not set up on the date on which the accident occurred. The learned member has upheld this contention and rejected the claim on the ground that he had no jurisdiction.2. Mr. Mandrekar, who appears for the petitioners, has challenged the legality of this order. For considering the contentions raised by Mr. Mandrekar, we will have to mention a few facts and the relevant dates.3. On the date of the accident, i.e. 7th September 1959 there was no Claims Tribunal constituted for Greater Bombay. The Notification was issued by the Government and a Tribunal was set ...
Tag this Judgment!Tanbaji Madhoji Chagre and anr. Vs. Nathoba Janbaji Dongre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom238; 1974MhLJ484
ORDER1. The petitioners claiming to be the deemed tenants of several field slumbering seven, being fields Nos. 85, 89/2, 86, 97, 84/3, 92 and 95, all situated at mouza Thanegaon, in district Wardha, question the validity of the order made tby the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on July 9, 1969 by which that Tribunal found tha these petitioners had not made out any case for a declaration that they were the deemed tenants under the provisions of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act).2. As far as this case is concerned it appears, the ownership of lands is not in dispute and it si stated in the application filed by htese persons that respondent No. 2 Nathoba is the Karta of the Hindu joint family consisting of the other members. It does appear that these respondents filed Civil Suit No. 98 of 1965 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Arvi, wherein the present petitioners raised a plea of tenancy and the matter was referred...
Tag this Judgment!Major S.L. BhasIn Vs. Lt. Col. Rucy D. Colabawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR422; 1974MhLJ686
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 80 of 1971 has filed the above application praying- that a proclamation against respondent No. 1, Lt. Col. Rucy D. Colabawala under Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code be issued and that attachment of all his moveable and immoveable properties be made under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows: Petitioner Major S.L. Bhasin had filed an Appeal from Order No. 130 of 1971 against the order of the Bombay City Civil Court on the Notice of Motion in Suit No. 1202 of 1971 and Civil Application No. 1983 of 1971. On September 2, 1971 Mr. Justice Nain passed the following- order in the Appeal after hearing1 the counsel for both the parties :--Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the defendants through their Advocate (defendant No. 2 is present in Court) undertake to this Court not to transfer, alienate or part with the possession of the vessel M.S.V. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hariba Keshav Barbole and ors. Vs. Motibai Deepchand Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom137; (1974)76BOMLR595; 1974MhLJ823
Shah, J.1. This Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of law as to the interpretation of Section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The question of law raised in this case relates to the rights of the heirs of the certificated landlord to get possession of the land under Section 33-B where the certificated landlord dies after he makes an application for possession of the land under S. 33-B.3. To properly appreciate the points involved, it would be necessary to state a few undisputed facts. The land, Survey No. 81/2, admeasuring 13 acres situate at Darphal, Taluka Madha in Sholapur District belonged to one Deepchand and was in possession of one Keshav as a tenant. Deepchand obtained a certificate under Section 88 - C of the Act and after serving the tenant with a notice made an application for possession of the land against Keshav on 9-1-1962 under Section 33-B of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Agri Orient Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR605(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question of law that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, for our determination runs as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 23A(1) were applicable to the company for the assessment year 1954-55.'2. The assessee is a private limited company doing business in fertilizers. The assessment year in question is 1954-55, the corresponding previous year was one which ended on March 31, 1954. The accounts of the company are maintained according to mercantile system of accounting. For the accounting year ended on March 31, 1954, its profit and loss account showed a profit of Rs. 8,500. There was a loss of the earlier year of the Rs. 8,212 so that the balance to the credit of the profit and loss account in the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1954, was Rs. 283. The annual general meeting of the company was held on December 20,195...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Shoram Leva and anr. Vs. Hari Totaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom65; 1973MhLJ906
1. The question of law which arises in this appeal is whether plaintiff Hair who was adopted on 27-7-1956 by Rukhmabai widow of Totaram who died in 1952, could divest Rukhmabai of the property which had absolutely vested in her by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The question arise thus: Totaram, the original owner of field survey No. 67/1 situated at mouza Borkhedi, Taluq Malkapur, District Buldana, died in 1953 leaving behind Rukhmabai, defendant No.1, The Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17-6-1956. Plaintiff Hari was adopted by Rukhmabai on 27-7-1956, and after the adoption of the plaintiff, Rukhmabai sold filled survey No. 67/1 to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on 10-2-1957. These defendants in their turn gifted the said field to the defendant No.4 on 14-2-1957 and the defendant No.4 is in actual possession of the property. Plaintiff Hari brought his suit for possession of field survey No. 67/1 alleging that the sale deed in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!Bajirao Shekoji Vs. Koosan Kondaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom64
ORDER1. A short question is raised by the petitioner in this case upon admitted facts that the respondent is the landholder of survey No. 3/3, area 7 acres and 13 gunthas, of village Dombala, tahsil Daryapur, district Amravati. 2. It was the allegation of the petitioner that he was in possession as lessee of this filed for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 and that he was dispossessed on June 30, 1955. 3. Therefore, he filed an application under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, under Section 19 (2) read with Section 9 (6) for repossession the land claiming a status that he was a protected lessee as contemplated by the Act. Those proceedings were terminated by the Writ petition in this High Court being Special Civil Application No. 173 of 1966 and the claim of the petitioner Bajirao was negatived and he was found not to be a protected lessee and as such not entitled to repossess the land. 4. During the pendency of those proceedings, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy...
Tag this Judgment!Bapurao Rajaram Waikar Vs. Babulal Mulchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR246
Bhole, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant of a shop in which he is doing the business of Tabla repairing in Shukrawar Peth, Poona. He is doing this business for a period of thirty years in that locality and paying a rent of Us. 20 p.m. The respondent needed the premises for expanding his business and for opening a new shop and therefore he served a notice on him. The notice was on two grounds. The first ground was of the bona fide and reasonable requirements and the second ground was of arrears of rent. The petitioner within one month applied for the fixing up of the standard rent. The landlord filed thereafter a suit with a prayer that the petitioner should be ejected from the shop, on the ground that he reasonably and bona fide required the premises and also on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than six months. The petitioner resisted the claim of the landlord and stated that he is not in arrears of rent at all; that when he sent the rent to the landlord by ...
Tag this Judgment!GulamhusseIn Ebrahim Matcheswalla (by His Legal Heirs) Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR24(Bom)
Kantawal, C.J. 1. By this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question is referred to us for our determination at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether there was any material to justify the finding of the Tribunal that any portion of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the items of Rs. 29,366 in the year 1956-57 and of Rs. 27,377 in the year 1958-59 was of a capital nature ?' 2. From the question framed it is clear that it refers to the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59, for which the corresponding accounting periods were Samvat year 2011 and Samvat year 2013, respectively. The assessee was manufacturing match boxes in its factory at Kurla and selling them in the market. It owned several godowns, sheds, etc., and they formed part of the said business assets. The business of manufacturing matches was stopped from Samvat year 2009 and the godowns once used for that business were let...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »