Mumbai Court January 1974 Judgments
Ramesh Krishna Rao Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1974
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR552; (1974)IILLJ441Bom; 1974MhLJ845
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by one Ramesh Krishna Rao (original petitioner) against the judgment and order passed by Vimadalal, J. on July 24, 1969, whereby the learned Judge dismissed his petition being Misc. Petition No. 563 of 1967. 2. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be stated : The petitioner was appointed as a probationary assistant in the State Bank of India (respondent No. 1) with effect from November 3, 1959. When that post was offered to him on October 30, 1959 the petitioner was furnished with the cyclostyled copy of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules governing his services in the Bank and was informed that he will be required to sign the declaration in form 'A' appended to the Rules. By His letter dated November 3, 1959 he accepted the appointment and as required by Rules he paid a sum Rs. 1,000 as and by way of security deposit and signed the requisite declaration in the prescribed form 'A' agreeing...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ibrahim Mohomed HusseIn Maddu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1974
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR704
Vaidya, J.1. The above criminal revision application raises an important question under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.2. The application is filed by the State against an order passed on September 18, 1973 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, over-ruling an objection raised by the special public prosecutor to a question being asked to the prosecution witness, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1973, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the sixty-rive opponents in the above revision application. The said opponents are charged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 149, 152 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned in the charge, with regard to certain incidents which occurred in the communal riots in Bhiwandi in May 1970. It is not necessary to mention, for the purposes of this revision application, the details of the said charge.3. After the examination-in-chief of prosecution witness No. 1 Jayasingh ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Shridhar Shetty Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR106
Mukhi, J.1. It is unfortunate that this appeal from a decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963 in a running-down action is being heard ten years after it was admitted and as much as thirteen years since the date of the accident in which the deceased Shridhar Bapu Shetty lost his life.2. Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963 has been filed by the wife and children of the deceased and is a claim under Section 1A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The learned Civil Judge raised the necessary issues, including an issue on the question of alleged negligence and the quantum of damages as claimed by the plaintiffs. He also raised the issue as to the maintainability of the suit against defendant No. 2, the Dairy Development Officer of Maharashtra State and a further issue, being issue No. 3, which is in the following words:Do plaintiffs prove that the deceased was following the rules of the road as alleged by, them?It is significant that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Mohandas Vishindas Chainani Vs. Hiranand Assumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1974
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR494
Deshmukh, J.1. Only one point of law arises for our decision in this appeal. A few undisputed facts, which may be noted before the point of law is formulated, are these:2. The respondent in this Court is the original applicant in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay and a plaintiff in the City Civil Court. Respondent filed his application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, being ejectment Application No. 1149/E of 1958 on July 31, 1958. He-alleged that he had granted licence to the opponent-occupant and that licence was withdrawn but, in spite of a request to vacate, the occupant did not; and therefore the ejectment application.3. The appellant as the opponent or occupant appeared before the Court of Small Causes and filed defences. His main defence was that he was a subtenant of the portion which was separated and given in his exclusive possession. There could, therefore, be no question of withdrawing or terminating the licence. After holding the trial in that a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaji Baliramji Sawarkar Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Gener ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Bom249; 1974MhLJ475
Padhye, J.1. This revision application has come to us on a reference made by our learned brother Masodkar J. The facts of this case lie in a small compass. They have been fully stated in the referring order, but fully stated in the referring order, but we are giving an outline of the same.2. The applicant's land was sought to be acquired for the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act was duly issued. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the said Act and a notice under Section 9 of the Act was also issued. It was then decided to drop the acquisition proceedings and after the decision to drop the proceedings was taken, a notice under Section 48(2) of the Land Acquistion act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was issued to the applicant requiring him to file his statement of claim regarding the amount of compensation. the applicant claimed compensation. The applicant claimed Rs. 5, 987 as compensation. Whereas the Land...
Tag this Judgment!Lotan Bhoji Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1577
ORDERBhole, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhulia, recommending not only that the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirpur, regarding the production of documents be quashed but also that the learned Magistrate 'be directed to issue summons under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Superintendent of Police, Dhulia, the District Magistrate, Dhulia and the Home Minister, Maharashtra State, Bombay, requesting them to depute their clerk and to produce the statements recorded by Thalner Police Station on 7-4-1972, 16-4-1972, 17-4-1972 and 10-5-1972.2. Some 12 accused of village Hisale taluka Shirpur District Dhulia, were prosecuted for offences committed under Sections 7(c), 4 (iv) and 7(b) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, for having committed offences on 10-4-1972 and 11-4-1972. It appears that an application was made by some Harijans of the village on 15-4-1972 to the District Superintendent of Police, to the District Magistrate and also...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Hassanali Vali Mohamed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1782
ORDERBhole, J.1. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code has recommended here that the order passed by the Magistrate be set aside and the case be remanded to him for recording the evidence as per Section 137(1) of the Code with a direction to decide the case according to law. The respondent is a bone factory at Burudgaon Road at Ahmednagar. In about 1969 a co-operative housing society came up there. The occupants of the houses of the society applied on 27-12-72 not only to the Police but also to the District Magistrate that the bone mill was causing nuisance to them on account of the foul smell emanating from the fresh bones. A proceeding under Section 137(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was therefore initiated. A preliminary order under Section 133 was accordingly passed on 6-2-73 by the Special Executive Magistrate and served on the respondent-accused. He was asked to cease carrying on the trade of bone milling because it was i...
Tag this Judgment!Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas1(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a petition under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956, for alteration of the memorandum so as to change the place of the registered office of the petitioner-company from the State of Maharashtra to the State of Mysore (now Karnataka). The registered office of the company is at present situate in Bombay, but the company's mills have always been situate at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. By a special resolution of the company duly passed in accordance with section 189 of the Companies Act on the 29th of July, 1969, at its annual general meeting, it was, inter alia, resolved that, subject to confirmation by the court, clause II of the memorandum of the company be amended so as to provide that the registered office of the company would be situate in the State of Mysore. 2. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it is stated that the Mysore State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore, had advanced to the company a loan of Rs. 20 lakhs, and one of the conditions for th...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Ramchandra Potdar Vs. Dattatraya Ramchandra Potdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom237; (1975)77BOMLR239; 1975MhLJ383
1. The Second Appeal raises two important questions of law as to whether on the facts and circumstances in this case an application for restitution is tenable and if not whether it could be treated as an application in the absence of mode of execution being stated, could be valid. The facts giving rise to these points could be briefly stated thus. 2. Dr. Mr. R. Potdar (the appellant), a dentist by profession, brought Civil Suit No.592 of 1960 against his elder brother for a declaration that the clinic run by them was a joint concern, that accounts be taken and that the defendants (respondent) be restrained from carrying on the profession in the name and style of 'D.R. Naik and Brothers.' The suit came to be instituted on October, 5, 1960. On the very day the plaintiff moved the Court for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing him in entering and conducting from obstructing him in entering and conducting the said clinic run in Municipal House No.40 of Nasik ...
Tag this Judgment!Balukishan A. Devidaval Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1891
Vaidya, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by one Balkishan A, Devidaval against whom Criminal Case No. 102/5/72 is pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court. Victoria Terminus, Bombay. The application involves important points under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. F. Act'') and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. U. P. Act').2. The above case arose out of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters before the Presidency Magistrate, at V. T., Bombay.3. The allegations in the said complaint may be briefly summarised as under:On November 21, 1970, the Assistant Security Officer, Central Railway, Bhusa-wal, intimated to the Chief Security Officer Bombay V. T. that two wagons Nos. ERKC-9447 Ex. HSPG BNDM to Akola and Wagon No. ERKC 75531 Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »