Mumbai Court April 1975 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.
Premchand Nathmal Kothari and ors. Vs. Kisanlal Bachharaj Vyas and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom82; 1975MhLJ497
ORDER1. An application was filed under section 3 of the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act, by creditor Kisanlal Bachharaj Vyas on 1-4-1970 against his debtors. It seems from the record that this application was opposed by the original Non-applicants Nos. 2,3, and 5 to 7 by filing a written statement and contention was also raised that the said application is bared by limitation, as it was not filed before the 1st day of April 1970 . It was also contended that as the application was not filed under Section 3 of the Act before the specified date , the debt stood extinguished. The applicant -creditor has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing sufficient cause for not filing the application before the 1st day of April 1970.2. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Amravati, by his order dated 23rd October 1972 allowed the application filed by the applicant -creditor under Section 5 of t...
K.K. Dabir Vs. the City of Nagpur Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom117; 1976MhLJ293
ORDER1. The applicant is the owner of house No. 737 in Ward NO. 41, situate in city of Nagpur. In the year 1967, all houses in Ward NO. 41 were revalued by the non-applicant, Corporation for the purposes of assessment, as contemplated by Section 119 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, referred to hereinafter as the Act. ON the basis of revaluation, the Corporation authorities assessed the annual letting value of the house of the applicant at Rs. 2,345 with effect from 1-4-1967. Therefore, a notice under Section 134 of the Act was issued to him. The applicant raised an objection to this assessment on various grounds and contended that his house has been wrongly valued and assessed. According to him, the entire house is occupied by the owner himself, and therefore, the house should be assessed as one unit only. This objection was rejected by the Objection Officer by his order dated 18-12-1968. The applicant-owner therefore, preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 89 of 1969 Before th...
Laxman Ganpati Khot and ors. Vs. Anusyabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom264; 1977MhLJ68
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Sangli, passing a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff who is the first respondent before us. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are, that the first defendant, who is the son of the second defendant, was born on the 18th of October 1940. The date of birth of the first defendant has not been produced in the trial Court. The plaintiff is the widow of one Anna who was the brother of the second defendant and, therefore, the paternal uncle of the first defendant. The first defendant claims to have been adopted by the said Anna, who had no children, on the 25th of January 1959 when, according to the first defendant claims to have been adopted by the said Anna, who had no children, on the 25th of January 1959 when, according to the first defendant, the necessary adoption ceremony was performed in the presence of several ...
Laxman Chandrabhan Naktode and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom87; 1975MhLJ541
Deshmukh, J.1. These two writ petitions have been referred by the learned Single Judge of this Court . The question involved the interpretation of the provisions of Section 120-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as the Vidarbha Tenancy Act) . The point has been directly decided by the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the parallel provisions of Section 84--A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act). However, the learned Single Judge felt that a reconsideration of the view taken seems to be necessary for reasons stated by him and hence he referred the matter to the Division Bench.2. The few facts that must be noted for understanding the point of controversy are these. One Sitabai who was a widow inherited agricultural property from her mother Bahenabai, Sitabai had a daughter. Sushila, who was married to one Laxman Naktode. This Sushila also di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›