Mumbai Court April 1974 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shantilal H. Shah and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas176(Bom)
R.P. Bhatt, J.1. By a policy of fire insurance dated 6th April, 1970, the predecessor of the defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') agreed to identify the plaintiffs in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 against fire, in respect of a property known as 'Pratap Sadan' situate at Nanavat, Surat, and also in respect of definite items of property mentioned in the said policy of insurance and of which the plaintiffs as present trustees are the owners. 2. Clause 6 of the said policy is in these terms : 'This insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence directly or indirectly of any of the following occurrences, viz. : (a) Earthquake, volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature. (b) Typhoon, hurricane, tornado, cyclone or other atmospheric disturbance. (c) War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not) or civil war. (d) Mutiny, riot, military or popular uprising insurrection, rebel...
Udyog Mandir Vs. Contessa Knit Wear and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom158; (1974)76BOMLR735; 1975MhLJ56
ORDER1. Petitioner, Udyog Mandir Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd., is a Co-operative society , registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960. On June 11, 1973, opponent No.1, M/s. Contessa Knit Wear, filed , in the Court of small Causes at Bombay, a declaratory suit, being suit No. 771/2858 of 1973, against Opponent No.2 as No.3 as defendant No.2 Mrs. Kenu S. Gurbuxani and Opponent No. 1 was the legal and lawful tenant in respect of Unit 339 of Udyog Mandir Industrial Estate, fully protected under the Bombay -16, and was fully protected under the Bombay Rent Act notwithstanding the fact that it was inducted into the premises under an agreement of leave and licence dated July 23, 1972 for a period of 11 months, before the expire of which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was amended by the Maharashtra Act XVIII of 1973 which came into force on February 1, 1973 Opponent No. 1 also prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defenda...
Namdeo Atmaram Ramteke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: 1976CriLJ871; 1975MhLJ36
Shimpi, J.1. The accused appellant was charged in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1971 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara that on 13th February, 1971 at village Masalmeta, Tahsil Sakoli, District Bhandara, he caused injuries with an axe to Mahadeo son of Bhiwaji Ganvir, resident of the same village and attempted to commit his murder. In the course of the same transaction and at the aforesaid time he also attempted to commit murder of his aunt Smt. Ithabai wife of Mangali of the same village and thu9 the accused was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to cause murder of these two persons.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the evidence so far as attempting to cause the murder of Mahadeo was concerned was not sufficient to connect the accused with that crime. At any rate he observed that doubt arose in his mind as regards the complicity of the accused in attempting to commit murder of Mahadeo. This finding has been given by the Additional Ses...
Ganpat Bapurao Bihaekat Vs. Rameshwar Shalligram Pitambarwale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom225; 1974MhLJ774
1. The petitioner as a landlord filed before the Rent Controller, Akot, an application under clause 13(3) (ii), (v) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 for permission to give notice to the respondent No. 1 determining his lease, i.e. on the grounds of habitual default, tenant securing an alternative accommodation and the landlord needing the house for his bona fide occupation. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the landlord on all the three grounds. In appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the application of the landlord was rejected on all the grounds. The landlord has, therefore, filed this petition.2. Along k with the application a Schedule was filed by the landlord showing the dates on which amounts were paid. In this Schedule it is not shown as to for which month the particular amount of rent was paid. This is Exhibit A in the record. The respondent No. tenant had stated that he has been paying the rent eve...
Sadanand Murlidhar Burma and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1974
Reported in: 1976CriLJ68; 1974MhLJ44
ORDERShimpi, J.1. Criminal Revision Application No, 25 of 1974 challenges the order of acquittal of Jaganlal son of Kanhailal Agarwal consequent to the allowing of the application by the Additional Sessions Judge Amravati, filed by the Public Prosecutor that consent be given by the Court to withdraw the Sessions Case No. 49 of 1969 against the said accused Jaganlal Kanhailal.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 1974 challenges the order of acquittal of Baban Ramchandra Baipayee and Madhukar Dhundirai consequent to the allowing of the application by the Additional Sessions Judge Amravati, filed by Public Prosecutor of Amravati in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1969 that he be allowed to withdraw the cases against the five persons named in that application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted permission in so far as two accused mentioned above. The grounds mentioned in the application by the Public Prosecutor in this application are that those 5 accused are students of tende...
Narayanrao Marotirao Pimpalkar Vs. Waman Nathuji Wankhade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Bom319; 1974MhLJ620
ORDERMasodkar, J.1. The present revision arises out of the refusal by the courts below to grant the prayer for temporary injunction. That prayer has been refused only because the courts thought that the present applicant-plaintiff cannot be assisted because of the terms of Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the plaintiff cannot be said to have any prima facie case and said to be covered by the words 'any other injury' occurring in Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code.2. This approach is clearly unsustainable. The application itself was under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, as well under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts under which the aid of the court was sought clearly establish that the defendants 1 and 2 had got a decree for joint possession along with the present applicant-plaintiff. The plaintiff was, therefore, driven to file the present suit for general partition. He was, therefore, in lawful possession along with the other defendants. Only because a decr...
Gangabisan Deokaran Gattani Vs. Talakchand Waghajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom242; 1974MhLJ613
1. This is the defendant's appeal questioning the validity of the decree in ejectment passed by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal by the District Judges, Amravati.2. To understand the submission made at the Bar, a few facts are necessary. The Plaintiff-landlord sought permission from the Rent Controller to determine the lease on the grounds under Clause 13 (3) (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. He was permitted to give quit notice for the tenant was found to be a habitual defaulter within the meaning of Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the Order. This permission was given to the landlord on September 5, 1967, and on the very next day, the landlord served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the monthly lease of the present defendant by the end of the month of September 1967. The tenant filed an appeal under the provisions of te Rent Control Order and the appellate Authority, on September 20, 1969 allowed the appeal and set aside the permission granted...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Umar Badshah Hassan Damudi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR788
1. The petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Bombay, in favour of the seven accused, who are the respondents before me. The petitioner, the Assistant Collector of Customs, had filed a complaint charging the accused with the commission of an offence under of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The complaint disclosed the following facts :- In pursuance of certain information the Customs and Central Excise Officers of the Marine and Preventive Division, Bombay, raided the premises at room No. 10, Sher Mansion. Ground Floor, Kopergaon Estate, Mazgaon, Bombay-10 on 25/26th September 1969 under the cover of a search warrant. The Officers found accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the premises. While they were about to start the search, an Ambassador car bearing No. MRD-6488 came near the premises and stopped in front of the room. Accused No. 3 was at the wheel of the car and accused No. 4 was sitting by his sid...
Aziz Baksh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1023
ORDERShimpi, J.1. The applicant accused is being tried in Criminal Case No. 76 of 1972 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani. When the case reached the stage of arguments, the applicant accused filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal which-is the transfer application being numbered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 36 of 1973 under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The transfer application wag ultimately heard bv Shri P. V. Padhye. Additional Sessions Judge. Yeotmal who rejected it. Thereafter the applicant has moved this- Court with a prayer that his Criminal case be transferred. The facts of the Case are that applicant appeared as a witness in Criminal Case No. 61! of 1971 presumably aa a defence witness and Sub-Government Pleader Shri Kedar who is practising at Wani cross-examined him. It appears that the applicant ig an ex-serviceman. He is a Muslim by religion. He was allotted certain lands at village Pisgaon bv the Government and ...
Bhau Martand Shelar Vs. Hajabai Bala Nadaf and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom233; (1975)77BOMLR141
ORDER1. This Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner who is the landlord, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of law as to whether the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal dropping the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the tenants was a widow on the teller's day and her right to purchase the land was postponed under Section 32-F (1) (b) of the Act, which order Section 32-F (1) (b) of the Act, which order was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal, operates as res judicata, and, therefore, fresh proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act at the instance of the widow were not maintainable. 2. The facts of the case are few and are no longer in dispute. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 340-2B, 341-1A, 341-2, 340-2C and 341-1B of village Soni in Miraj Taluka belong to the petitioner. The respondent s a widow since before April 1, 1957, the tiller's da...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »