Mumbai Court August 1976 Judgments
Kisan Baban Raut Vs. the Collector, Akola and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom85; 1976MhLJ747
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner in this case was elected as a Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Balapur, in an election held in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 4th April, 1975. One Shri J. H. Sarap, who was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, tendered his resignation on 6-3-1975 and Vice-Chairman Shri Idhol also tendered his resignation on 5-3-1975. On account of these resignations vacancies in the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman were declared and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola by exercising his powers under Sub-section (1) of Sec, 75 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, referred to hereinafter as the Act, had chosen one Shri G. P. Patil, who was then working as the Chairman of the subject committee of the Zilla Parishad, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. till the election of the Chairman takes place. Thereafter it appears from the record that the Chief Execu...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Shirke Brothers Vs. Ratnagiri Municipal Borough
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Bom25
1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Ratnagiri allowing the defendant's appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri.2. The appellant-plaintiff is a firm doing transport business with its Head Office at Ratnagiri. The firm owns many trucks. In Dec. 1962, the plaintiffbrought two trucks bearing registration Nos. M. H. T. 501 and M. H. T. 502 with goods. The octroi was paid on the goods brought by the trucks but no octroi was paid on the trucks. On 9th Feb. 1963 and 4th April 1964, the Municipal Council issued notices demanding octroi duty on those trucks on the ground that the plaintiff had brought those trucks for use in the octroi limits of the Municipal Council. The plaintiff paid the octroi duty on 16th June 1964 under protest. The appellant then served a notice on the defendant demanding the refund of the octroi stating that the octroi was illegally collected because the motor trucks were not goods and ...
Tag this Judgment!D.H. Maniar Vs. Waman Laxman Kudav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR533
Untwalia, J.1. The appellants in this appeal by special leave had filed an application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882-hereinafter referred to as the S.C.C. Act, against the respondent to compel him to quit and deliver up the possession of the premises in question. The Small Cause Court made an order in favour of the appellants under Section 43 of the S.C.C. Act. On the filing of an application in revision by the respondent in the Bombay High Court, a learned single Judge of that Court has set aside the order of the Small Cause Court and dismissed the appellants' application for eviction of the respondent. Hence this appeal.2. This Court does, as it ought to, act with restraint and is loathe to pass any harsh or unpalatable remark concerning the judgment of a High Court. But sometimes constraint outweighs restraint and compels this Court in discharge of its duty to make some strong observations when it finds the judgment of the High Court running galore ...
Tag this Judgment!Cajitan A. D'Souza and Anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2032
Shah, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of some importance regarding the scope and ambit of Section 146 of the Cr. P. C., 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the new Code.'2. The facts giving rise to this petition are few and may be stated thus : On June 6, 1975, respondent No. 3 Harchandrai Vanjumal Santani filed an application before the Executive Magistrate, who is respondent No. 2 to this petition, Under Section 145 of the new Code against the petitioners. The dispute regarding possession relates to shop premises admeasuring 6' x 6' known as 'Lalit Ladies' Own Store' at Shop No. 1, Rant Chawl, Opp. Sitladevi Temple Mahim. The respondent No. 2 passed thereon a preliminary order Under Section 145(1) as he was satisfied that there was a dispute between the parties likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning the said premises. On June 13, 1975, the respondent No. 3 made another application to attach the property in dispute U...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalabai and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Bom26; (1977)79BOMLR370; ILR1977Bom2459; 1977MhLJ450
ORDER1. A short but important point arises in the above Special Civil Application, directed against the judgment, dated March 29, 1976, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Au-rangabad, dismissing an appeal against the decision of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Nilanga, dated December 27, 1975, declaring that the Petitioner No. 1 Kamalabai holds surplus land to the extent of 17 acres 15 gunthas under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The validity of the declaration will depend on the question as to whether the Tribunals erred in law in excluding from consideration the share of the mother-in-law of Petitioner No. 1, Sheshabai, under Section 3 (3) (c) (ii) of the Oiling Act.2. Petitioner No. 1 Kamalabai filed a return under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act claiming that her husband, Govindrao, died on 27-8-1975, leaving behind him, herself, two minor daughters and his father and mother. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunals...
Tag this Judgment!Cajitan A. D'souza Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR175
Shah, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of some importance regarding the scope and ambit of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the new Code.'2. The facts giving rise to this petition are few and may be stated thus : On June 6, 1975, respondent No. 3 Harchandrai Vanjumal Santani filed an application before the Executive Magistrate, who is respondent No. 2 to this petition, under Section 145 of the new Code against the petitioners. The dispute regarding possession relates to shop premises admeasuring 6' 6' known as 'Lalit Ladies' Own Store' at Shop No. 1, Raut Chawl, Opposite Sitladevi Temple, Mahim. The respondent No. 2 passed, thereon a preliminary order under Section 145(1) as he was satisfied that there was a dispute between the parties likely to cause a broach of the peace concerning the said premises. On June 13, 1975, the respondent No. 3 made another application to attach the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhalchandra Gangadhar Ghate Vs. Pralhad Saduji Raghute and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1490; 1976MhLJ711
Mosodkar, J.1. These are proceedings initiated for contempt.2. The Application alleged that the article written by opponent No. 1 in Souvenir called 'PRERNA' has a tendency to disrepute the high name of the judiciary. The article, it is stated, tries to make disrespectful reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1042 of 1972 where opponent No. 1 was the petitioner and his petition was dismissed though therein no mention is made of the same. This is main part of the charge and that concerns opponent No. 1 only. As far as other opponents they appear to have been impleaded because in the publication three of them have been shown to be the members of the Advisory Committee as part of the Editorial Board. That also appears to us wholly inadequate reason, for, the Chief Advisor, Ramjiwan Chaudhari has not been joined as opponent so also other persons named as members of the Editorial Board. Thus there is no allegation against opponents Nos. 2, 3, 4 an...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavji Raisee Vs. Shri V.M. Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR186; 1977MhLJ8
Chandurkar, J.1. A sample of ground-nut-oil purchased by the food inspector, Mr. Patil, from the Janata General Stores, Vikhroli, Bombay, having been found to be adulterated, the original accused No. 1 Naik in whose name the licence of the shop stood and accused No. 2, respondent No. 2, Sunderji Meghji Shah, are being tried for having committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Bombay. Accused No. 1, however, is absconding and the trial is being proceeded with only against accused No. 2.2. The food inspector was examined before the charge on March 5, 1976. He was cross-examined after the charge on April 19, 1976. During the course of the cross-examination, a cash-memo, exh. 1, was put to the food inspector. The food inspector deposed that the wholesaler mentioned in the cash memo, i.e., M/s. Mukesh...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesaheb Karbhari Kupkar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR175
Vaidya, J.1. The only question, which arises in these two identical petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in law including in the holding of the petitioners the lands which were acquired in each of these cases under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts in Special Civil Application No. 2817 of 1976 were briefly as follows:The petitioner filed a return on November 26, 1975, under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. A public notice was given under Section 17(1). Individual notices were also issued. Under Section 17(2) no objection was received. Thereafter an enquiry was made before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Kaij. There was no dispute that the petitioner's land, approximately 47 acres, was being acquired for Manjara Irrigation Project.3. The Tribunal held that as the action of acquisition was not c...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavji Raisee Vs. V.M. Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ885
Chandurkar, J.1. A sample of groundnut oil purchased by the Food Inspector, Mr. Patil. from the Janata General Stores, Vikhroli, Bombay, having been found to be adulterated, the original accused No. 1 Naik in whose name the licence of the shop stood and accused No, 2, respondent No. 2, Sunderji Meghji Shah, are being tried for having committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. 34th Court, Vikhroli, Bombay. Accused No. 1, however, is absconding and the trial is being proceeded with only against accused No. 2.2. The Food Inspector was examined before the charge on 5th March 1976. He was cross-examined after the charge on 19th April 1976. During the course of the cress-examination, a cash-memo, Ex. 1. was put to the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector deposed that; the wholesalers mentioned in the cash-memo, i.e. M/s. Mukes...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »