Mumbai Court April 1976 Judgments
Kamal Chintaman Mithari and ors. Vs. Ganpatrao Ramchandra Powar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom163; (1978)80BOMLR365; 1978MhLJ116
1. This appeal raises an interesting question under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Bates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), The facts necessary for appreciation of the contentions raised in this appeal lie within a narrow compass. The dispute in 1he appeal relates to 3 house in E Ward, Kolhapur, bearing City Survey No. 692/1-2. This house belonged to one Suresh Vasudeo Dongarkar, who solo the same to the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, on 29th November 1964. One Chintamani Mithari had rented the said house, which I propose to refer hereafter as 'the said premises' from Suresh Dongarkar at a rent of Rs. 10/- p. m. He was what has come to be known as a statutory tenant in respect of the said premises. The said Chintamani died in or about 1962. In 1965 the plaintiff instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 1S65 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, against one Muktabai Nikam, the mo...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Khadke Vs. Smt. Manjulabai Vanji Chaudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR446
Sapre, J.1. This criminal revision application raises a question about the scope and interpretation of Section 300 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petitioner on behalf of Jalgaon Municipal Council filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Jalgaon, against respondent No. 1 Manjulabai, complaining that she had committed offences punishable under Sections 189(8), (9), (10) as also under Section 181(3) of the Act. Manjulabai pleaded guilty. That plea was accepted and she was convicted. She was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default, simple imprisonment for three days. She was also directed to remove the unauthorised construction within fifteen days. The punishment prescribed by Section 181(3) is of fine only which may be extended to Rs. 100. The punishment prescribed under Section 189(9) Sub-sections (8) and (10) of Section 189 are not relevant for our purpose) is also of fine only wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Raoji Hari Lad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom1; 1977LabIC23; 1978MhLJ88
Mridul, J.1. These two companion appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 30th November 1966, rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 48 of 1964, filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., at Nasik. By the said judgment and decree, the claim of the plaintiff was partially allowed against the defendant.2. The plaintiff was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said corporation'), and was working as a cashier-cum-reservation clerk. The date of birth of the plaintiff being 24th October 1905, under the rules of the corporation, the plaintiff was liable to retire on 24th October 1963. The plaintiff, however, was dismissed by the Corporation on 15th July 1953. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 257 of 1957 on 14th March 1957, inter alia claiming a declaration that the order of dismissal was wrong and for consequential reliefs. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Kailaschand Khusalchand Bakliwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR449
Chandurkar, J.1. This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a common question relating to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (Act III of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came into force on January 3, 1976. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court at Bombay and some petitions which were originally filed before the Nagpur Bench were transferred to this Court for hearing and counsel appearing in these cases from Nagpur have also been heard. Similarly, Miscellaneous Petition No. 997 of 1975 which was originally filed on the Original Side of this Court challenging the Maharashtra Debt Relief Ordinance, 1975 (VII of 1975)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') has been referred to the Division Bench to be heard along with the other petitions on the appellate side and Mr. P.A. Mehta along with Mr. H.K. Shah appeared for the petitioners in that petition. After the Ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Sitaram and anr. Vs. Rukhmabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom24; 1976MhLJ492
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The dispute involved in this writ petition relates to field survey number 5, admeasuring 36 acres 19 gunthax of Mouza Marathwadki, taluq Kelapur' district Yeotmal. The field originally belonged to one Giglabai wife of Laduram Agarwal, who died on 3-2-1951. Before her death, she executed a will dated 5th August 1948 and gave a limited estate in respect of the field to Smt. Parwatibai wife of her son Bajranglaf, who died sometime in 1918 or 1919. In the will it was further stated that on the death of Parwatibai the field will become an absolute property of the petitioners before this Court, It appears from the record that one Sambha, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents-tenants, took the aforesaid field on lease from Parwatibai in the agricultural year 1952-53. After her death, according to the petitioners, by virtue of the will executed by Giglabai, the petitioners became the owners of the field property. According to the petitioners, as they required the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom193; (1980)82BOMLR212; 1977LabIC654; 1976MhLJ755
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The three questions referred to our Full Bench by the Division Bench are these;(1) Whether the Circulars, Orders or Resolutions or parts thereof laying down rules or principles of general application, which have to be observed in the recruitment or fixation of seniority of Government servants generally or a particular class of them, and which have been duly authenticated by a signature under the endorsement 'By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra' and intended to be applicable straightway are or amount to the rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, although the said Circulars, Orders or Resolutions do not expressly state that the same are made or issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are not published in the Government Gazette?(2) Whether the said Circulars, Orders or Resolutions or parts of them as set out in ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Morarji Hirji Maru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR289
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State Government for enhancement of sentence. The accused-respondents were prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On August 12, 1972 inspector Purohit on information visited the Galas 6 and 7, 8 Galli and found that the accused had stored ninety-two bags of wheat in those Galas. According to the prosecution, as per the licence issued to the accused, the accused were not authorised to store the foodgrains at the places other than those mentioned in the licence and admittedly these places were not the one authorised by the said licence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that they had filed proper returns to the rationing authority. According to them, the bags of wheat were duly accounted for in their account book. They admitted that about ninety-two baga of wheat were kept at a place other than tho...
Tag this Judgment!A Vs. B
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR384
Vaidya, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the wife, against the judgment, dated September 24, 1975, in F.A. No. 92 of 1975, conforming the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1975, passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, in her petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation. In the petition, she had also prayed for an injunction restraining the husband and his servants and agents from entering flat No. 4, situate in Ganga Bhavan, 24th Road, Bandra, which is the matrimonial home of the couple, and for costs of the petition.2. The petitioner was married to the respondent on March 10, 1954, according to the Hindu Vedic Rites. It was a love marriage. She is enrolled as an advocate of this Court; and she has been practising in the Courts in Bombay. The allegations which she made in the petition against the husband may be briefly summarised as under:3. There is no issue of the marriage. The marriage with the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Sadashiv Date and ors. Vs. Ganesh Shankar Date and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom350; (1977)79BOMLR234
Kantawaia, C.J. 1. The Division Bench consisting of Deshmukh and Sapre, JJ. by its judgment and order dated 14th/15th July 1975 has referred the following question for determination by the Full Bench;--'When an alienation like the service inam in this case was a grant to a family in the name of senior member and the same is abolished, whether the provisions of S. 4 of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, extinguish the ordinary rights and incidents in respect of such alienation under the personal law of the parties?'2. The dispute in this appeal relates to lands pertaining to service inam. Originally the grant was to one Gangadhar and after his death an heirship enquiry was started in the year 1889, As a result thereof, the name of Narhari, his son, was entered as Navawala in respect of service inam by an order dated May 10, 1889. The genealogy of Narhar Gangadhar is as under:-- NARHAR CANGADHAR | ------------------------------------------- | | |...
Tag this Judgment!Shripatrao Mahadeorao Jadhav and ors. Vs. Lonawala Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom439; 1976MhLJ695
Deshpande, J.1. This case raises an interpreting question as to the true interpretation of Section 65 and 66 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . A few facts so far as relevant to the points are these: At the election of the Lonawala Municipal council. respondent NO.1 herein held in the month of November, 1974, petitioner Nos. 1 to 14 and opponents Nos. 3 to 14 were elected as councillor. Opponents No. 15 are both co-opted councillor. It is admittedly a `C` class council. A meeting was convened on 25th January, 1975, after elections, for determining the strength of the Standing Committee as also the composition thereof in addition to the election of the subjects Committees, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 of Section 66 of the Act. The total strength of the elected councillor of this council admittedly consists of 26 elected councillor, two co-opted councillor and the President directly elected by the voters under Section 5...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »