Mumbai Court October 1978 Judgments
Dhirubhai H. Ambani Vs. Dhanpati Thakersi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR382
Chandurkar, J.1. The decision of this appeal which is directed against an order of the City Civil Court, Bombay, issuing an injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining him from carrying out any work of digging of land or laying of foundation columns or doing any other work of any nature whatsoever thereon turns upon the construction of the provisions of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with the provisions of Sections 354 and 499 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Corporation Act').2. The facts which have led to the suit filed by the respondents, who are trustees of a trust known as Khetsi Chatrabhuj Khiasi Ajani Shri Kutchi Dasa Oswal Jain Vidyalaya are not in dispute. The trust which has been referred to as the owners by the learned trial Judge admittedly owned the suit building which consisted of a ground floor and four upper floors which were in the occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Sushilabai Vasudeo Jaeel Vs. M.S. Dillon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR360
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners in this case are tenants of a portion of a house bearing No. 454 situate in Shaniwar Peth of Pune city. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are the landlords and they have filed Civil Suit bearing No. 1344 of 1975 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune against the petitioners claiming possession of the suit premises and certain other reliefs. Possession of the premises is claimed on the ground that respondent No. 2 Shridhar Balwant Kanade needs the premises for bona fide occupation and use. Obviously, therefore, the suit was filed under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Rent Act, This suit was resisted on behalf of the petitioners by filing a written-statement on February 5, 1976. On March 12, 1976 the respondent-plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint in view of the amending Act No. 52 of 1975 whereby Section 13-A1 was introduced in the Rent Act. The ...
Tag this Judgment!John Joseph Kummel Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR375; 1978MhLJ856
Sawant, J.1. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is within a narrow compass. The petitioner had filed a complaint against one Patil Bama Mhatre, who is the landlord of the premises, of which the petitioner is a tenant, for the offence under Section 18(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The allegation of the petitioner was that by a written-agreement dated August 10, 1971, the accused Patil Bama had granted him a lease in respect of the premises by accepting from him a sum of Rs. 3,000 as premium. Since the receipt of the premium or any consideration, for grant of lease was barred by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act and was made a cognizable offence, the accused was guilty of the same.2. The learned Magistrate on the evidence led before him, convicted the accused for the said offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 and in default to simple imprison...
Tag this Judgment!John Joseph Kummel Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1150
Sawant J.1. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is within a narrow compass, The Petitioner had filed a complaint against one Patil Bama Mhatre, who is the landlord of the premises, of which the Petitioner is a tenant, for the offence under Section 18(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The allegation of the Petitioner was that by a written agreement dated the 10th of Aug. 1971, the Accused Patil Bama had granted him a lease in respect of the premises by accepting from him a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as premium. Since the receipt of the premium or any consideration, for grant of lease was barred by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act and was made a cognizable offence, the Accused was guilty of the same.2. The learned Magistrate on the evidence led before him, convicted the Accused for the said offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default to simple...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vasant Investment Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1978
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas139(Bom)
Manohar, J. 1. This is a summons for directions taken out by the applicants under s. 391 of the Companies Act for calling a meeting of the members to consider an arrangement to re-start the Colaba Land and Mill Company Ltd. (In liquidation). The official liquidator of the company in liquidation has opposed this application mainly on three grounds at this stage. In the first place, it has been urged by him that under s. 391 of the Companies Act when a company is being wound up the only person who can frame an arrangement in respect of the company is the liquidator and not anybody else. In this connection, he has relied on the language of s. 391, sub-s. (1) which is as follows : '391. Power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members - (1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed - (a) between a company and its creditors or any class of them; or (b) between a company and its members or any class of them; the court may, on the application of the company or of any ...
Tag this Judgment!N.B. Shukla Vs. Bank of Baroda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ291Bom
1. The important question that arises in this petitioner is whether the order terminating the service of the petitioner amounts to dismissal by way of punishment or whether it is a discharge from service simpliciter. It is to restrain the respondents from acting or enforcing that order, and for other ancillary reliefs, that this petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The 1st respondent is the Bank of Baroda (referred to hereafter as 'the Bank'). The 2nd respondent is the Union of India in whom, after the coming into force of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, all the assets, capital, shares and properties of the Bank vests. No relief is claimed against the 2nd respondent. 3. On 30th March, 1960, the petitioner was employed by the Bank as a clerk on probation and in 1960 was confirmed or otherwise became a permanent employee of the Bank. However, according to the Bank, the petitioner's services were liable to be t...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Ganpatrao Pokale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR378
Gadgil J.1. The main controversy in this petition pertains to the validity of different pay-scales for the posts known as Malaria Technicians in the Public Health Department under the State of Maharashtra. It is not in dispute that from the beginning there were two pay-scales for such technicians. Pay-scales of Rs. 125-245 was meant for graduate technicians, while the technicians having S.S.C. qualifications were in the pay-scale of Rs. 100-170. the pay-scales prescribed periodical increments whereby pay gradually increased from the lowest figure. Efficiency bar was also fixed at a certain level. However, these details are not relevant and hence we are not making reference to them. Similarly, such details about rates of increments etc. of the subsequent revised pay-scales are not referred to. We would be referring to the pay-scales by only giving the minimum and maximum pay in the scales. The petitioner who is S.S.C., was appointed as the Malaria Technician under order dated January 21...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Kishtiah Renguntawar Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR367; [1981]51CompCas163(Bom); 1979MhLJ176
Masodkar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the appellant order made in adjudication proceedings under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are not very happy and one has to read the same with somewhat uneasiness particularly because the appellant happened to be, during the relevant period, the Vice-Chancellor of the Marathwada University in the State of Maharashtra and is found concurrently in the adjudication proceeding by the Deputy Director as well by the appeal court to have contravened the provisions of s. 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 3. Now for the purposes of the present appeal certain facts have not been in dispute. The present appellant in the capacity of Vice-Chancellor went abroad on July 29, 1973, and returned to India on September 28, 1973. He had an invitation to attend the Commonwealth Universities Conference at Edinburgh. He visited the German Democratic Republic as well as the U.S.S....
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Abaji Mandke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR542
Deshpande, J.1. Petitioners in this group of petitions are all legal practitioners two of them having enrolled as such practitioners after retirement from service. Under Section 3 of the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (hereafter referred to as 'The Act') read with entry 2 of the Schedule I thereof, the petitioners are liable to pay the profession tax upto Rs. 250 per annum. The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the above Schedule I of the Act.2. The main charging Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:(1) Subject to the provisions of article 276 of the Constitution of India and of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments for the benefit of the State. (2) Every person engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment and falling under one or the other of the classes mentioned in the second column of Schedule 1 shall be liable to pay to the State Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Shripatrao Limbaji Kadam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom222; (1979)81BOMLR504; 1979MhLJ267
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition by thirteen members of the committee of the Sakhar Karkhana which itself is petitioner No. 14. This petition has been filed to challenge the order Ex.-D to the petition dated the 25th of August 1978 passed by the Director of Sugar and Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Poona-9. By this order the appointment of the committee of petitioners Nos. 1 to 13 has been terminated and one K.S. Jaiswal, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Beed, has been appointed administrator of petitioner No. 14 Karkhana for the period ending with the 31st of December 1978 or till the elected Board of Directors of the Karkhana is formed and assumes charge, whichever is earlier.2. Most of the facts are undisputed. The dispute relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and more particularly the powers and rights of the Director of Sugar and the Add...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›