Mumbai Court February 1978 Judgments
Shantinath S. Ghongade Vs. Rajmal Uttamchand Gugale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom269; (1978)80BOMLR671; 1979MhLJ229
ORDER1. A question of some importance which arises in this petition and which has been argued at length is whether a purchaser of a property in the possession of a tenant is entitled to invoke the provisions of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 13(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'), if the alleged breach has taken place before the plaintiff became owner of the property by virtue of a sale in his favour.2. Admittedly the premises were let out to the defendant-petitioner on 4th March 1965 and the defendant had executed a rent note in favour of the original owner Sonabai. The rent note is written on an ordinary paper, but the tenant has signed on adhesive stamps of the value of 20 paise stuck thereon. There is no dispute that this rent note specifically refers to the premises being taken on rent for the purposes of residence. One of the stipulations of this rent note is that the tenant had made a deposit of...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kisan Rupaji Ghatal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR93; 1978MhLJ618
Naik, J.1. There is no substance in this appeal and hence it is dismissed summarily.2. Since this appeal raises a short point of law, the learned Advocate-General desires that I may dispose of the matter by a speaking order for the guidance of the forest department.3. The question arises under these circumstances: It appears that certain forest produce was alleged to have been used, by the respondent-accused thereby committing an offence under Section 26(f) of the Indian Forest Act. The forest officer thereafter in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 68(1)(a) of the Act, took an undertaking in writing from the respondent-accused to pay the amount of compensation mentioned in the said undertaking. The respondent-accused having failed to honour his undertaking the State prosecuted the accused for an offence under Section 26(f) of the Indian Forest Act.4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.5. On the evidence led in the case, the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskarrao Jageshwarrao Buty and ors. Vs. Saru Jadhaorao Tumble and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom322; 1978MhLJ528
ORDER1. These two revision applications raise a common question of fact and law, and are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment.2. The plaintiff, petitioner before me is a money-lender having a valid licence issued to him under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. It was his case that he advanced a loan in the form of foodgrains namely, paddy to the defendant. That he complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, namely, sending statements, maintaining accounts and such other formalities. The grain was to be returned with interest which was agreed. Since, however, the defendant did not repay the loan of grain, either in the form of grain or in cash, the plaintiff brought this suit.3. The defendant apart from denying the claim of the plaintiff, raised a contention that the claim was not enforceable by reason of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Stocks Declaration and Procurement and Disposal, Acquisition, Transport and Price Control) Order, 1966. The trial Judge a...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorilal Maikulal Jais Vs. the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom341; 1978MhLJ522
1. This is a revision application against judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 2911 of 1969. This was a suit to recover the electricity charges for the electricity consumed by the defendant, the petitioner before me, between the period from 25th Sept. 19.64 to 29th Sept. 1967.2. According to the plaintiff, Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd., the defendant had applied for fixation of a meter and for electric energy on Sept. 15, 1964. He applied for reconnection to his premises which connection was given. It appears that the Company had not thereafter sent bills or took meter reading of the electricity consumed by the defendant at the aforesaid premises which electric energy was metered by the meter installed there until May 1967. At that time, it was observed that during 1964 to 1967 i.e. practically for 2 1/2 years, the defendant had consumed 978 Units of electric energy costing thereby a sum of Rupees 363.55 on account of...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrao Tohluji Bagade Vs. Namdeorao Lalwanji Sontakkey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR462; 1978MhLJ371
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the returned candidate Anandrao against the decision of the district Judge, Nagpur in Election Petition No. 2 of 1974 whereby his election as a Municipal Councillor of Saoner Municipal Council has been declared as null and void and the respondent Namdeo was declared as elected from Ward 18. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the residents of Saoner, District Nagpur. The elections to the Municipal Council, Saoner were held on November 17, 1974. The last date for filing nomination papers was October 21, 1974.2. It is the case of the petitioner Anandrao that he filed his nomination paper on or before October 1.7, 1974. It appears that apart from the petitioner Anandrao, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 also filed their nomination papers for the same constituency. It is also an admitted position that Ward No. 18 from which the elections took place was a Reserved seat for the persons belon...
Tag this Judgment!Jaya Sheena Shetty Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR276; 1978MhLJ675
Naik, J.1. By this revision application the original accused challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, dated March 15, 1977, dismissing his appeal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana dated July 12, 1976, convicting him for an offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are briefly these: The revision petitioner-accused was a contractor of a canteen situate in the factory known as 'F.R. Windsor,' in the Industrial Estate, Thane. Sometime prior to January 28, 1974 there was a report in the newspaper about cases of food poisoning in the canteen of the accused. That is why on January 28, 1974, Food Inspector Barde went to the said canteen and after following the usual procedure he asked the accused to sell mustard oil, Batata wada and Bes...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Sitaram Kohali and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom344; 1978MhLJ379
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, in Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1964, directing the plaintiff to pay ad valoremcourt-fee on Rs. 15,16,500 holding that the suit is under Section 6(iv)(d) third proviso of the Court-Fees Act.2. The suit was commenced on 17th of Aug. 1963 and was preceded by a litigation between the defendant and plaintiffs which went up to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the descendants of one Chimna Patel and Kolhu Patel of Tahsil Sakoli, District Bhandara; that they held lands described in plaint para 1 and that they are persons holding interest of their ancestors Chimna Patel and Kolhu Patel; that these two persons were their ancestors. According to them, in this Tahsil Sakoli somewhere in the 17th Century their ancestors constructed a tank called the 'Navegaon Bandh' at a cost of about a lakh of rupees and the said tank was their private property; that from t...
Tag this Judgment!Maman Chand Ratilal Agarwal Vs. Jaysingh Jairam Tyagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR349
Deshpande, J.1. This case and the group of connected cases is referred to this division Bench. It raises an important question as to the true interpretation of Section 3(4) of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act being Act No. 46 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), as amended by Amendment Act No. 22 of 1972. The question is whether fresh notification under amended Section 3 of the Central Act extending the Act retrospectively is necessary to validate the decrees, etc. passed before the prospective extension of the Rent Act under earlier notification dated December 27, 1969?2. The petitioner is the landlord. His suit for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act' against his tenant, the respondent, from a house in a cantonment area in Kirkee, was decreed on March 12, 1967 in the belief that the Rent Act applied to the said area.3. The house in dispute in this case as also ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Gulabsingh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom367
Vaidya, J.1. The only point arising in the above appeal, filed by the State, is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, who, on Aug. 9, 1974, convicted the accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1974, under Section. 326, and sentenced him to suffer Rule . 1. for two years, was right in acquitting him and the other three accused who are respondents in the above appeal, who were convicted under Section. 323 and acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with Section. 34 of the I.P.C. and were given the benefit of Section. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, that is, in acquitting accused No. 1 of the charge under Section 307 and accused Nos. 2 to 4 of the charge under 307 read with Section. 34 I.P.C.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given reasons in para. 23 of his judgment. The said reasons are attacked in the above appeal filed by the State. It must be noted that the conviction of accused No. 1 is challenged by him by filing Criminal Appeal No. 9...
Tag this Judgment!Flori Rodriques Vs. Maxie Jerome Daniel Cabral
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR150; 1978MhLJ627
Naik, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting question of law about the recent changes made in the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The question arises under the following circumstances : It appears that Maxine-respondent No. 1 and Daniel-respondent No. 3 are brothers and Mrs. Florid-petitioner No. 1 is their sister. House No. 94, Azad Road, Vile Parle, Bombay-57 is the subject-matter of dispute. Jerome Daniel Cabral was the father of Maxie, Daniel and Flori. It is the case of Maxie that the entire building was constructed by him from his own funds sometime in 1969 and that he was residing there with his parents and his mother died in 1970 and father in 1975.3. On May 8, 1975, Maxie made an application to the Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against his sister Flori, brother Daniel and Flori's two sons Conrad and Farrel. He complained that on April 19, 1975, Flori's. two sons ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »