Mumbai Court October 1976 Judgments
Yeshwant Tukaram Jadhav Vs. Vithal Dattoba Sankpal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Bom365; (1978)80BOMLR190; 1978MhLJ18
ORDER1. The petitioner applied under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for recovering possession of R. S. No. 767, situated at K-Bavada in Karvir Tahasil, Kolhapur, area 1 H-85 R. assessed at Rs. 24-25. The land undisputedly was governed by Section 43A of the Act, as it was a land leased for sugar-cane cultivation within the meaning of that Section, on the ground that he required the land for bona fide personal cultivation, and he was a small holder earning his living principally by agriculture or agricultural labour, who satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the Notification issued by the Government under Section 43A (3), of February 14, 1958, as modified by a further notification under that Section dated October 8, 1969.2. After careful consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the Tenancy Aval Karkun, Karvir, by his order dated May 2, 1973, allowed that application, terminated the tenancy of the Respondents and ordered possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. D.R. Chatterjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR104
Dighe, J.1. These three appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. In each of these three cases a complaint was filed on February 17, 1975, that the motor vehicle belonging to respondent-accused was found causing obstruction to traffic and thereby an offence punishable under Section 102 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Act No. XXII of 1951) was committed. In each of these three cases the learned Honorary Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, recorded the plea of not guilty of the concerned accused and has recorded the statement of the complainant that there was no No Parking Board. The learned Magistrate has written a single line order that the offence was not proved and discharged the accused.2. The State has come in appeal saying that the procedure followed was erroneous. At any rate, the prosecution ought to have been given a chance to substantiate their case by the fuller examination of the complainant. It ought not to be forgotten that these are petty offences tried by the Honorar...
Tag this Judgment!Shamrao Nana Aswale Vs. Atmaram Nana Aswale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR177
Vaidya, J.1. The above Special Civil Application is directed against a rather extraordinary decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated June 17, 1975, confirming the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tenancy Appeals, Sangli, on January 28, 1974, without discussing the merits, holding that no appeal lay against a finding under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, of the Court of Taluka Aval Karkun, Walwas, Islampur, dated November 29, 1972, by which he held that both the petitioner and the respondents were joint tenants who are brothers and were joint tenants in the disputed suit lands.2. The learned tribunal and the Deputy Collector relied on a decision of a single Judge of this Court in Shantabai Ramchandra v. Pandurang (1972) 75 Bom. L.R. 79, where a view was taken that every decision on the status of a person under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, cannot be treated to be a decision under Section 4 of ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. D.R. Chatterjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1040
Dighe, J.1. These three appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. In each of these three cases a complaint was filed on 17th February, 1975, that the motor vehicle belonging to respondent-accused was found causing obstruction to traffic and thereby an offence punishable under Section 102 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Act No. XXII of 1951) : was committed. In each of these three cases the learned Honorary Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, recorded the plea of not guilty of the concerned accused and has recorded the statement of the complainant that there was no Parking Board, The learned Magistrate has written a single line order that the offence was not proved and discharged the accused.2. The State has come in appeal saying that the procedure followed was erroneous. At any rate, the prosecution ought to have been given a chance to substantiate their case by the fuller examination of the complainant. It ought not to be forgotten that these are petty offences tried by the Honora...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Shantilal Chhaganlal Sareiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR1
Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent (original accused) Shantilal Chhaganlal Sareiya by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on charges under Sections 18(a)(i) and (ii) and 18(b) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as 'the Drugs Act'.2. There is no dispute that the respondent Shantilal is a proprietor of a concern under the name and style of Messrs. Vallabhji Bhika and Co., situate at Princess Street, Bombay 2, holding a valid licence for dealing in and selling drugs under the Drugs Act. According to the prosecution, at about the time of the commission of the offence, the Drugs Control Administration had received information that spurious Barbour's surgical linen thread was in circulation in Bombay market. The Drugs Inspector Kochar (P.W. 1) visited the shop of the respondent on December 4, 1971, when he came across stock of spurious Barbour's s...
Tag this Judgment!Ramabai Balkrishna Nene and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Urban Development ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom367; (1978)80BOMLR108
Naik, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the notification issued by the Government on 7th July 1966 and 26th November 1970 under Section 10 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 modifying the development plan which was proposed by the Poona Municipal Corporation.2. The petitioners are owners of old city survey No. 906/1 situate in Poona, which is to the north of Laxmi Road, It appears that on 28th Nov. 1958, the Municipal Corporation of Poona made a declaration of its intention of making a development plan under Section 4 (1) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and the plan was actually published as required by Section 8 (1) of that Act in the Bombay Government Gazette dated 26th Feb. 1959. On 30th Sept. 1964, the Corporation submitted a modified plan to the Government after following the requisite procedure. In the modified plan the Corporation had reserved the property comprised in city survey No. 437/...
Tag this Judgment!National Asphalt Products Constructions Co. Vs. N.M. Kothari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1976
Reported in: [1977(35)FLR31]; (1977)IILLJ377Bom; 1977MhLJ241
Sawant, J.1. This is a petition field under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 2-4-1971 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Bombay, on a preliminary point raised by the petitioner in a reference being Reference (IDA) No. 301 of 1968 pending before it. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition are as follows : 3. The petitioner-company terminated services of three of its employees. An employee by name A. Raman who had joined its service on 28-2-1966 was retrenched by the company with effect from 14-5-66. Another employee by name Narashimalu who had joined its service in 1960 was dismissed from service after holding an inquiry into his misconduct with effect from 6-8-1966 and the third employee by name Lawrence Carvalho was discharged from service with effect from 19-12-1966 after he had put in service for about two years. Thereafter, according to the second respondent-union, viz., the Rashtriya Mazdoor Union, they raised an industrial dispute on b...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sudhakar Annaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR716; 1977MhLJ34
Sapre, J.1. This application in revision by the State is directed against an order dated November 21, 1975 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, releasing the opponent Sudhakar Annaji Jadhav on bail. It is prayed that the said order be set aside and the opponent committed to custody.2. The opponent Sudhakar and his brother Baburao are standing trial before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Rule 43(1)(a) read with Sub-rule (5) and Rule 46(1)(6) read with Sub-rule (5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. It is alleged that when the house of Sudhakar and Baburao was searched on September 4, 1975, a pamphlet called 'Lok Sangharsh Varta Patra' was found in the house and that pamphlet contained material likely to bring into hatred or excite dissatisfaction towards the Government established by law in India.3. The opponent moved the learned trial Magistrate for bail, who rejected that applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantrao Vs. Shyamrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas669(Bom); 1975MhLJ337
Masodkar, J.1. Ex facie an interesting but on closer scrutiny an infirm question of law is raised by the present revision. The entire controversy submitted has something to do with the application of the provisions of Part X of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Companies Act'), as urged, excluding the operation per force the statute of Chapter VI of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter called 'the Partnership Act'). Indeed, the main plank of submission is that in a suit purporting to have been filed under Chapter VI of the Partnership Act, if the partnership in issue consists of more than seven partners, but below twenty, on the date of the suit for dissolution of such partnership, per force the provisions of Part X of the Companies Act are attracted and by virtue of the provisions of section 582 read with section 583, the ordinary civil court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the only relief can be provided by the competent company cou...
Tag this Judgment!Vimalabai Govind Juvekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom77; 1976MhLJ858
ORDER1. The Petitioner's husband died in the month of June 1975. He had no issue. The agricultural property which the petitioner's husband had was his self-acquired property. The total holding was about 81 acres 3 gunthas. During the lifetime of late Govind Juvekar, the husband of the petitioner, he executed a registered will on 25-4-1973. By the said will the deceased bequeathed 35 acres of land to his nephew prabhakar Narayan Juvekar, respondent No. 4 to this petition. After the death of deceased Govind Juvekar in June, 1975, the said nephew became owner of the said property and is also in possession thereof. Thus it is the case of the petitioner that even before the commencement date i.e., 2-10-1975, of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972, referred to hereinafter as the Amending Act, 35 acres of Land was in possession of his nephew, namely, Prabhakar Narayan Juvekar. In spite of this, the said land was counted in the holding...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »