Mumbai Court August 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.
Kopargaon Big Hagayatkar Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs. D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom333; 1977MhLJ181
1. The appellant in the above Second Appeal is the Kopargaon Big Bagayatdat Vividha Karyaari Sahakari Society Ltd., registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Society obtained a decree against judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 2 respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Deorao Sakharam Pawar, in Regular Suit No. 38 of 1955, on August 31, 1956, for a sum for Rs. 1,683/- and odd thought almost 19 years have passed the respondents have not cared to pay a single paisa towards the decree. Darkhast Nos. 354 of 1966, 213 of 1960 and 13 of 1964, filed by the Society , yielded nothing. By their application No. 3 of 1967, the decree was got transferred to Shrirampur Court. The decree-holder applied for execution of the, on April 28, 1967 in that court by sale of the moveable property belonging to the judgment - debtors and alternatively, for the arrest for the judgment-debtors. The said Regular Darkhast No. 83 of 1967, was signed and verified by S. K. Raskar, in his capacity as the Chairma...
Keshao Govind Begde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom78
ORDER1. The petitioner is a landlord residing at village Chimur. He filed a return on September 12, 1962. under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings ) Act . 1961 (hereinafter called the ceiling Act) That return was sent by the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Warora, for an enquiry according to the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer registered the case as Revenue Case No. 32/60-A (3) /63-64 . In the return the petitioner had mentioned that he was in possession of lands to the extent of 110.02 acres. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice under Section 17 , made an enquiry and passed an order on April 4, 1965. whereby he held that the petitioner was holding lands to the extent of 437.01 acres. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal by its order dated June 28, 1986 set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the case for further enquiry. ...
Bandu Pandu Ghadge Vs. Smt. Gulshanbi Mard Kondibhai Karbhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1975
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR391; 1976MhLJ350
Hajarnavis, J.1. This is tenants' petition against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona, dismissing the application for revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order passed by the District Deputy Collector, Satara, dismissing the appeal of petitioners against the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Patan directing that the lands held by the petitioners under tenancy rights be restored to the respondent.2. Survey Nos. 331, 332 and 338/2 situate at Mhavashi, Taluka Patan, District Satara, originally belonged to the deceased Kondibhai. Bandu and deceased Shindu, whose legal representatives have been brought on record, were the tenants of these fields. Kondibhai filed an application under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the 'Tenancy Act') before the Mamlatdar, Patan, for a certificate that provisions of Sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act were not applicable to these lands. The Mamlatdar,...
Yadaorao Nathuji Kokude Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ751; 1976MhLJ31
ORDERShimpi, J.1. Applicant Yadaorao Nathuji Kokude, a resident of Tkidi, Tahail and District Bhandara, has filed this revision Application challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge; Bhandara, on 24th of September 1974 in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1974 where-under he set aside the order passed by thai Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara in favour of the applicant and directed thai the present non-applicants 2 and 3 were found to be in possession of the suit land on the date of the preliminary order with' in two months prior to the date of preliminary order and further directed the applicant not to disturb the possession of the non-applicants until they were law-Cully evicted from the suit lands.2. The facts in brief are as under:S. Noa. 101 and 102 totally admeasuring 12 acres 92 gunthas situated at village Parsodi belonged originally to one Chan-drabhagabai, who died sometimes in March 1971. During her lifetime Chandrabhagabai gifted these suit lands to Yogabhyas...
Manilal Jamnadas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR278(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. At the instances of the assessee,. M/s. Manilal Jamnadas, a firm at Bombay, the following question has been referred to us for our determination by the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal refusing to grant registration to the applicant firm is justified in law ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the corresponding accounting years being S.Y. 2014 and S. Y. 2015, respectively. The facts giving rise to the question may be stated : Prior to October 24, 1957, on which date commenced the year of account of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60, there was a firm called M/s. Champaklal Jamnadas. It had come into existence under a deed of partnership dated November 13, 1951. Its partners and their share were as under : (1) Manilal ... 5 annas.(2) Vasantkumar s/o. Manilal ... 2 '(3) Pravinchandra Manilal ... 2 '(4) Champakl...
Sitaram Shobharam and anr. Vs. Nandram Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom35
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the municipal houses Nos. 9/913 . 9/914 and 9/915 situate within Amraoti Municipal limits. The petitioners are in occupation of the Municipal House No. 9/913. The municipal house No. 9/913 consists of shop premises on the ground floor and three other rooms in the same building. Two rooms are on the first floor and one room is situate on the second floor. Respondent No 1 made an application in the Court of the Rent Controllor. Amroati for permission to terminate the tenancy on four grounds. In that application it was alleged that respondent No. 2 was the tenant and he had sub-let the premises to the petitioners and also to respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 1 claimed that he was entitled to get possession of the entire property on the ground that it was sub-let by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners and respondent No. 3 under clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order): the other grounds on which the tenancy ...
Manilal Jamnadas (Seeds) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR24(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference relates to registration of a firm under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment years under consideration are 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. By a deed of partnership dated November 11, 1950, a partnership firm was constituted to carry on business in the name of Messrs. Champaklal Jamnadas & Co. It consisted of four partners, namely, (1) Manilal Jamnadas, (2) Keshavlal Ravchand, (3) Champaklal Jamnadas and (4) Dharamshi Maneckchand. The profits of the business were to be shared in the manner indicated with a particular percentage of profits earned by way of brokerage and a different percentage of profits earned in speculation business. Out of these four partners Manilal and Champaklal are brothers. The partnership firm was to carry on business of speculation and brokerage. This firm continued to carry on business till the end of Samvat year 2013, i.e., October 23, 1957, being the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1958-59. As from the...
Bhupatrai Maganlal Ghia and ors. Vs. Rajaram Ghai ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom258; 1976MhLJ242
ORDER1. This is a landlord's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the decision of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes allowing defendant's appeal and dismissing the plaintiff's claim for possession of the suit premises.2. It is not necessary for the purpose of this petition to enumerate all the facts in detail. It is enough to state that the ground-floor of the building, known as 'Ghia Mahnsion', on Carmichael Road, Bombay, was let out to respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of about Rs. 426/-. The premises consisted of 28 rooms the total area of which was 5570.18 sq.ft. At the relevant time when the premises were in his occupation, the family of respondent No. 1, consisted of himself, his wife and his daughter. On 29th August 1961 notice to quit was given by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 terminating his tenancy on various grounds, one of the grounds being that the suit premises were let out by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 for residential purpo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›