Mumbai Court September 1976 Judgments
Hanmanta Laxman Thorat and ors. Vs. Dhondavvabai Hanmanta Thorat and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom191; (1976)78BOMLR675
1. This is defendants' appeal against an appellate decree of the Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur, dismissing their appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akkalkot, declaring that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant No. 1 have 1/3rd share each in the suit land and the sale effected by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5 in respect of Survey No. 36/1 was not binding on the plaintiffs.2. The respondent No. 2--original plaintiff No. 2 is a son of respondent No. 1 -- original plaintiff No. 1 and the appellant No. 1 Hanmanta. It is the case of the plaintiffs that this Hanmanta married appellant No. 2 -- original defendant No. 2 Nagawa while the marriage between him and respondent No. 1 Dhondavvabai was subsisting. The appellants Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of appellants Nos. 1 and 2. Original defendant No. 5 was the purchaser of Survey No. 36/1. It is not disputed and both the Courts below have found that Survey No. 36/1 and Survey No. 145/1 o...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Vs. the State of Maharastra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1336
ORDERGandhi, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the petitioner original accused against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhri, dated 3-3-1976 dismissing the appeal and ordering the appellant, that is, the petitioner to surrender to his bail, from the order of conviction in Criminal Case No. 11 of 1975 which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ashti on 27th November, 1975 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence Under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to pay the fine, to suffer one month's R. I. more.2. Ordinarily this Court would not go into the evidence for the purpose of appreciating it in criminal revision application, especially when there are concurrent findings on questions of fact, by both the lower Courts. I would have followed this ordinary course, but Mr. Deshpande appearing for the petitioner submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaniram Jagannath Lokhande and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom240
Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners purchased the lands in dispute from respondent No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 1,800 on 17-4-1963. A few days before they filed an application in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution on 5-1-1976, they received a notice from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umrer calling upon them to appear before him on 28th of August 1975 to show cause why the lands Khasra Nos. 7 and 8 should not be restored to the tribal, respondent No. 3, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequent to the service of the first notice, the Government of Maharashtra framed rules on 1st of November 1975 under the Act prescribing the forms in which the notices were to be served for initiating the proceedings for restoration of lands to the tribals. Another notice, therefore, was also served in form No. II requiring the petitioner to appear on 28th of December 1975. The petitioners challenge...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. N. Khamkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1485
Gandhi, J.1. This is a State appeal against the original accused No. 2 against the order of acquittal dated 7-6-1974 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F. C., Wai. The prosecution was Under Sections 7(i), 7(ii) and 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').2. Original accused No. 2 was prosecuted along with one Sadashiv Vithoba Khamker, who was original accused No. 1, for committing an offence of selling Jilebi which was adulterated and misbranded food as defined Under Sections 2(i) (j) and 2(ix) (d) of the said Act. This being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the facts having been stated in the judgment of the lower Court, I do not propose to repeat the same here but there are certain important dates which are required to be stated. The date of the alleged offence is 19th February 1973, on which date the Food Inspector obtained Jilebi from the shop of accused No. 2, in whose name in the Municipality the licence for runni...
Tag this Judgment!Government Pleader Vs. the Groundnut Extraction Export Development Ass ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR226
Madon, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application in revision purporting to do so under Section 5(2) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are that on December 21, 1972, respondents No. 1, who are the plaintiffs, filed an Interpleader Suit on the Original Side of this High Court, being Short Cause Suit No. 41 of 1978, against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,10,217.74 P. Respondents No. 1 paid ad valorem Court-fees on their plaint. When this suit reached hearing before Nain J., on June 12, 1973 as a Short Cause for directions, Nain J., directed the plaintiffs to bring into and deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 1,05,00 within seven days. Ho further granted an injunction restraining the respondents No. 3 from proceeding further with the garnishes proceedings adopted by them in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Vijayanagaram, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He then adjourned the suit for four weeks and further direct...
Tag this Judgment!Advani Oerlikon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR229; [1977]107ITR520(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This is an application in revision under section 5(2) of the Bombay Court Fees, 1959. 2. The petitioners are a private limited company and carry on the business of manufacture and sale electrodes and welding and electronic equipments. They are being assessed under the, 1961, as a private limited company and are also assessable under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Surtax Act'). In respect of the assessment year 1964-65 the petitioners were assessed both under the was made on March 30, 1972, and as is shown by the said assessment order the designation of the officer who made the said order was Surtax Officer, Companies Circle I(9), Bombay. 3. Being aggrieved by this order of assessment the petitioners filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed on February 27, 1973. The petitioners thereupon filed a second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This appe...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhu Nath Rameshchandra Sarcar Vs. Surendra Manilal Jhaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR34
Madon, J.1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the defendant for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. This Motion is resisted by the plaintiff on three grounds, namely, (1) that the affidavit in support of this Notice of Motion does not contain the necessary averments and, therefore, the Motion is not maintainable on the ground that it does not make out any case entitling the defendant to obtain stay of the suit, (2) the defendant was not ready and willing at the date when the suit was filed to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration, and (3) after the filing of the suit the defendant has not been ready and willing and has not remained ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration.2. In order to understand these contentions it is necessary to set out a few facts and dates. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement on March 13, 1970 under which the partnership was ...
Tag this Judgment!Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.G. Chitale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR1; 1977MhLJ869
Tulzapurkar, J.1. By these two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company is seeking to raise two important questions for our determination viz:(1) Whether the requirements of Section 19(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Maharashtra Recognisation of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), are conditions precedent to the filing of an application for recognition by a trade union under Section 11 of the Act or the said requirements could be complied with even during the pendency of such application upto the date, of granting of recognition?(2) Whether while considering the question of granting such recognition under Section 12 of the Act, the Industrial Court should inquire into any unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the union after the filing of the application, but during its pendency and if proved should in view thereof refuse recognition?2. The two questions arise in...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Murlidhar Pandurang Kalekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1342; 1975MhLJ66
Gandhi, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Solapur, acquitting the accused Under Section 7(5) read with Rule 45(a)(d) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The facts are stated in detail in the Judgment and for disposing of this appeal, the same are not necessary to reproduce the same. Mr. Solkar for the State pointed out to me the relevant portion of the evidence of the Panch as well as the observations of the learned Judge, dealing with two or three important points of law raised by the accused in the lower Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate has summarised the defence in para 7 of his judgment and has held in favour of the accused on two or three vital points. The learned Magistrate, having discussed the evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the sanction for prosecution was not valid and Ex. 10 was not a valid document, providing sa...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. G.S. Narayan Ayyar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: [1977(35)FLR314]; (1977)IILLJ189Bom
1. This is an appeal by the Corporation of the City of Nagpur against the order of acquittal passed the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Corporation), Nagpur on 17th May, 1974 acquitting the agent of the Bank of Baroda who was charged for an offence under S. 7(2A) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. It appears that on January 8, 1974, at about 10.45 a.m. the Shop Inspector attached to the Corporation visited the premises of the Bank of Baroda, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur and observed that the employer had failed to send an application in the prescribed Form B for renewal of registration certificate in respect of his establishment for the year 1974. After going through the formalities, a challan was lodged. 2. On behalf of the accused it was contended that the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Act No. 71 of 1948), do not apply and as such there was no necessity of taking any such licence. It may be observed that subsequently for the same year 1974 such a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »