Mumbai Court September 1973 Judgments
Mohamed Salim SamsuddIn and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom53; (1974)76BOMLR519; ILR1975Bom227
Tulzapurkar, Ag.C.J. 1. These appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the Executive Engineer. Irrigation Division, Nasik, for acquiring certain lands comprised in different survey numbers situate at Malegaon, District Nasik, for public purpose, namely, construction of Distributory No.42 of Mosum Rice Canal. Various portions of different notifications that were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') both having been published on the same date namely 4th May, 1961. An area of 1 acre and 5 gunthas out of survey No.148/1 plus 2 situate at Malegaon Belonging to Dr. Mohamed Salim Samsuddin and his three brothers was sought to be acquired under notifications bearing No. L.a. Q.C. 4368 dated 13th of April 1961 published in the Government Gazette on 4th of May 1961. Similarly under another notification bearing No. L.A.Q.C. 4369 also dated 13th of April 1961 published in the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshbai and anr. Vs. Ganpat Irappa Jangam and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom20; (1974)76BOMLR278
Shah, J.1. This reference raises an important question as to the meaning of the word 'dispute' in Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947). The Special Civil Application No.2353 of 1968 was originally heard by a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench for its views' on the following point:'whether the dispute as contemplated under section 12(3)(a) must be a bona fide dispute in order to claim benefit under Section 12(3)(a).'2. Since a pure question of law, and not the entire petition, has been referred, it is unnecessary to consider the case on facts. However, with a view to understand the question that has been referred, we will briefly set out the facts giving rise to this petition.3. Since prior to 1958, one Aher was a tenant of the open plot of land in dispute at the rent of Rs.12/- per month. He put up a flour mill. On February 14, 1958, by a deed of assignment, he had assigned his tenancy rights together wit...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Laxman Mokashi Vs. Sadanand Trimbak Yardi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR191
Deshmukh, J.1. This petition arises out of a reference made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. This petition is also an offshoot of what is known as the Vikhroli riot case. Another petition asking the High Court to take action in contempt against some other respondents was disposed of by us by upholding a technical objection to the maintainability of that application. In this application also another technical objection is raised by respondents who made speeches which are styled as amounting to contempt of Court.2. In order to understand the immunity which is being claimed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), (which will be hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), the facts may be very briefly noted. After a riot took place in Vikhroli on September 2, 1972 in what is known as the creek site Colony of the Godrej and Boyee Co. Ltd., several persona came to be arrested on suspicion of being involved ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Ahmed Kabuli Vs. the State of Maharasthra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom176; (1974)76BOMLR258
Deshpande, J. 1. The plaintiff, appellant in this letters Patent Appeal, Instituted a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay for - (a) declaration that the plaintiff was a citizen of India. and (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant i.e. the State of Maharashtra, the provisions of the Foreigners Act. The suit was instituted on 23rd January 1963. It was pleaded that he was born in Afghanistan, but has made India his domicile since his arrival in Bombay in the year 1941. He never left India since then. However on the pressure of the police officers, he was constrained to register himself as a foreigner on 12th July 1956, and also to receive Afgan passport thereafter through Afghanistan Consulate to enable him to continue his stay in India. After the expiry of the passport period on 11.4.1961, the Afghanistan Consulate declined to renew his passport. Defendants, police officers, on the other hand, threatened to serve 'leave India' notice if passport was not renewed within ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwas Narayan Limaye Vs. Sharad Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1973
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR616
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application in which a private individual describing himself as a Social Worker moved this Court for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 1 is a Minister of State for Home, Government of Maharashtra. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the editor and printers and publishers of 'Times of India' in which a certain speech delivered by respondent No. 1 was published. The. gist of the application is that the speech made by respondent No. 1 tends to interfere with due course of justice relating to a criminal case pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay. The criminal case relates to a riot resulting in the death of a police officer and causing of injuries to several others within the compound or near about Godrej Colony, Vikhroli, Bombay.2. A Division Bench of this Court issued rule on July 24, 1973. Today when the rule was called out for hearing the learned...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. A.K. Mathiborwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR659
Nathwani, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal from the judgment and Order of Mr. Justice Kania dated January 12, 1973 in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India setting aside an order blacklisting the original petitioners (respondents), who are four partners of a firm of M/s. V.K.Mithiborwala & Co., without giving notice or opportunity to be heard and raises an important question whether the impugned order is unconstitutional and illegal as violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.2. The blacklisting order is referred to in an office memorandum dated December 4, 1965 addressed, by the Assistant Director General (SG-), Department of Communications, Post and Telegraphs Board, Government of India, New Delhi, to all the Ministries and Departments of the Government of India etc. It is marked 'Confidential' and reads:The undersigned is directed to say that the Government of India have decided that the...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Arun Ganesh Phansalkar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ995; 1974MhLJ173
ORDERChandurkar, J.1. These two applications arise out of Session Trial No. 14 of 1973 in which 44 accused persons from village Erangaon in Tahsil Saoner. District Nag-pur are being tried on the allegations that they committed the murder of one Ramdas on 11-8-1972. Dr. Arun Ganesh Phansalkar, applicant in Criminal Application No. 257, who is an Assistant Surgeon at the Health Unit Hospital Saoner, is alleged to have carried out the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Ramdas at Saoner. Head Constable Mohboobkhan son of Mohammad Khan, applicant in Criminal Application No. 261 of 1973, is alleged to have made the inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama when the dead body of the deceased was taken out from a well. The prosecution at the trial examined several witnesses. Both the applicants were cited as witnesses but were not examined by the prosecution, because, according to them, the two witnesses were hostile to the prosecution Therefore, after evidence of all the wi...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radheshyam Motilal Khandelwal and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom228; 1974MhLJ319
Chandurkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Bombay, challenging a decree for Rs. 16,494.80 passed against them in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed to be partners of a partnership firm carrying on the business of million rice in the mill known as Alibhai Rice Mills at Gondia. Admittedly, in November, 1959 plaintiff No.1 Radheshyam purporting to act on behalf of Messrs. Alibhai Rice Mills, Gondia, signed an inventory of the property to be insured with the defendant Company, with an endorsement that only engine risk was to be covered and that plaintiff No. 1 Radheshyam should be informed as to how much premium would be required to be paid. The inventory referred to two items:(1) Ruston Oil Engine Make, Ruston & Hornsby Lincoln Ltd., England, and (2) Rice Mill Automatic Plant, one ton Behares Industrial Work, Dehanu Road. Against the first item the sum insured was shown as Rs. 35,000/- and against the second item it was sho...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Sailors' Home Society Vs. R.D. Tulpule and Anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ227Bom
Sawant, J.1. By this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Indian Sailors' Home Society, challenges the order dated 26-5-1970 passed by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 70 of 1968. The facts leading to the petition are as follows :2. Sometime in the year 1967, the employees of the petitioner-society raised a dispute in respect of salaries, dearness allowance and other benefits. The said dispute was taken in to conciliation and as the conciliation ended in failure, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by its reference order dated 17-2-1968. The union representing the employees filed its statement of claim on 12-4-1968 and the petitioner-society filed its written statement on 22-4-1968. In the written statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Jhaman Karamsingh Dadlani Vs. Ramanlal Maneklal Kantawala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Bom182; (1974)76BOMLR644
Deshpande, J. 1. The petitioner, an advocate of this Court. seeks to challenge the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1957, in this petition under Articles 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground of the said Rules being violative of Articles 14 and 19 thereof as also the provisions of the Advocates Act. 1961 . A writ directing Union Government to enforce Section 30 of the said Act said Act also is sought . This petition was lodged and received at the appellate Side. Notice before admission was directed to be issued by Vaidya and Dudhia JJ. to the respondents and certain other interested institutions, in view of importance of the points raised, when the matter was placed before us for admission, on the appearance of the respondents, etc., as per order of the learned Chief Justice. Regular Bench for constitutional matters could not hear it earlier due to an objection raised by Mr. Desai that one of the learned Judges was a member of the delegation opposing such Rule...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »