Mumbai Court February 1978 Judgments
Parsu Antu Bardeshkar Vs. Tamas Shahu Bardeshkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR359; 1978MhLJ572
Pratap, J.1. Apart from certain questions of fact which Mr. K. J. Abhyankar, the learned advocate for defendants Nos. 2 and 3, has unsuccessfully sought to raise in this second appeal, he has also, in addition thereto, raised for my determination a rather interesting question of law relating to the correct interpretation of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to its amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.2. [His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.]3. The last contention of Mr. Abhyankar, however, raises not merely a simple question of law but also an interesting question of law. It is the contention of Mr. Abhyankar that the learned district Judge erred in law in holding and coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff as a respondent before the District Court was entitled to file cross-objections against co-respondents in the appeal to the District Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Tukaram Chaudhari Vs. Ramchandra Laxman Nagulde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR357; 1978MhLJ598
Jahagirdar, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.]2. Mr. M. A. Rang contended that a Court should not come to a positive finding regarding unchastity on the basis of a confession or on admission alone. A charge of unchastity is as serious as a charge of adultery, says Mr. Rane, and it is well-established that the Courts will not act on the basis of a confession or on admission unless it is corroborated by independent evidence. Support is sought to be derived from Over v. Over (1924) 27 Bom. L.R. 251, for this proposition. A careful reading of this decision will show that the caution of insisting upon corroboration is to be exercised in order to rule out collusion between the parties. In the present case which is one under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the question of collusion does not arise. A wife will not collude with her husband by confessing about unchastity for getting rescinded an order of maintenance which is in her favour.3. Mr. Rane then soug...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Rasiklal K. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ809
ORDERApte, J.1. This petition has been filed by the State of Maharashtra under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon on Nov. 5, 1976, staying the prosecution until the assessment proceedings were finally decided.2. One firm styled as Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. was doing business in import and export of diamonds. The firm was registered with the Sales Tax Department.3. Respondent No. 6 (Original Accused No. 6) was the proprietor of a concern known as M/s. India Gems. It was also registered with the Sales Tax Department.4. During the period between Oct. 14, 1970 and March 1972 the firm of Kirtilal Kalidas & Co., effected certain transactions of sale of diamonds to the tune of Rs. 17,41,426 and they submitted their returns in respect of these sales along with Form No. 16 issued by M/s. India Gems of accused No. 6, On the basis of this Form they claimed exemption from sales tax on the above transactions. That claim...
Tag this Judgment!Daddo Atmaram Patil and ors. Vs. Raghunath Atmaram Patil (Savant) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom176; (1980)82BOMLR130; 1978MhLJ739
1. An interesting question of Hindu law arises for determination in this appeal viz.:Is a Shudra illegitimate son (dasiputra) or daughter entitled to succeed to the estate of his or her putative father by way of intestate succession opening after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?2. The facts are few and also simple. One Atmaram Patil died on September 8, 1960, leaving behind him, his widow Tanubai, defendant No. 3, his two sons Dadoo and Yashwant, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and his daughter Hirabai, defendant No. 4, Plaintiff No. 3 Krishnabai claimed herself to be also the lawfully wedded wife of thesaid Atmaram and plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 Raghunath and Shivaji respectively claimed to be the legitimate sons of Atmaram, being born of the aforesaid Krishnabai, plaintiff No. 3, and plaintiff No. 4 claimed to be the granddaughter of Atmaram being the daughter of the predeceased legitimate daughter of Atmaram through Krishnabai, plaintiff No. 3. On the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Malini Ganesh Tarlekar and ors. Vs. Hansraj Madhaorao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom230
Deshmukh. J.1. This is a petition by 8 academicians addressed against respondent No. 1 principally for a writ of quo warranto. According to them, respondent No. 1 ceases to be a teacher in the Poona University from 4th of Dec. 1976 or at any rate from 15th of March 1977 and thereafter he has no right to hold any office under the University, which was available to him because he was a teacher in a College. That is how they question his membership of the Board of Studies, Academic Council and the Executive Council of the Poona University.2. In order to understand the dispute and the defences raised, a few facts may be stated: The petitioners have described their status as persons occupying some elected offices in the academic world. It is not necessary to point out those qualifications as they are not strictly relevant for the purpose of disposing of the dispute.3. Respondent No. 1 was a teacher In the new Law College, Ahmednagar, when he was elected as a member of the Board of Studies o...
Tag this Judgment!Bajirao Domaji Shreerang and ors. Vs. Kashirao Ajabrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom350; 1978MhLJ665
ORDER1. This civil revision raises an interesting question as to application of the Maharashtra Vidarbha Region Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Vidarbha Debtor's Relief Act'). The question arises in this way: Applicants 2 to 4 before me obtained decree in Civil Suits Nos. 36B of 1950 and 1455 of 1958 against opponent Kashirao before me (hereinafter referred to as Kashirao). These two decrees, however, could not be executed as the execution of these decrees was stayed on account of the operation of the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956. This Act came into force on 1st Oct. 1956 (sic) (28th March 1956?). After the Reorganization of the States, the Vidarbha Debtor's Relief Act came into force OB the 7th day of March 1969. This was preceded by an Ordinance which was promulgated on 30-1-1969. As we shall presently see the Vidarbha Debtors Relief Act was to provide and substitute in place of the M. P. Temporary Pos...
Tag this Judgment!Om RajnaraIn Shivpuri Vs. R.M. Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1432
Sapre, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 2nd Nov. 1977 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivli, Bombay, under Section 451 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 in Criminal Case No. 655/W of 1977.2. Criminal Case No. 655/W of 1977 arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Roshanlal Anand against four persons, including the petitioner Om Rajnarain Shivpuri who is shown as accused No. 3 in the said complaint. That is a complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The allegations in the complaint are these. On 4th Jan., 1977 accused No. 2 Rajesh Saksena entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant Roshanlal Anand and sold to him his car Fiat Premier President bearing registration No. DHC-6239 on receiving payment of Rs. 20,500/-. Accused No. 2 Rajesh Saksena handed over to the complaniant the certificate of registration along with sale letter and receipt, but he agr...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom369; (1978)80BOMLR218
Desai J.1. The appellants before us are the original petitioners in Misc. Petition NO. 765 of 1972. They have preferred this appeal from the decision of Nain J. in the said petition dismissing the same with costs.2. The. appellants are manufacturers of barrels and drums and for the purpose of their manufacturing activity consume electricity which is supplied by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking owned by the 1st respondent Corporation. The 2nd respondent to this appeal, who was also the 2nd respondent to the original petition, was at the relevant time an Officer of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking. The appellants filed their petition for an appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the respondents to withdraw or cancel the notice dated 31st Oct. 1972, by which it was threatened that the electric supply of the petitioners would be disconnected on account of non-payment of the sum of Rs. 3,30,853.68 mentioned in the said notice. In order to understand the rival contentions, it will be necessary to me...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Bhagwant Sulakhe and ors. Vs. Suryakant Gopal Sulakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom303
Deshpande, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal by the original decree-holders raises some question of importance as to the interpretation of Section 144 of the Civil P. C. and Order 21, Rule 2 thereof. In Special Civil Suit No. 103 of 1946 the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, passed a decree on 29-2-1960 against Suryakant, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, and several other defendants. The decree was for payment of Rs. 74,449-13-8 with 6 per cent interest as also for possession of the property by partition. The defendants were made liable for payment for the satisfaction of the said decree, jointly and severally. This decree has been modified by this Court on 9-10-1967 in First Appeal No. 278 of 1960. As a result thereof the defendant ceased to be liable to pay any money to the plaintiff. We are informed at the Bar that an appeal against the judgment of this Court dated 9-10-1967 is still pending in the Supreme Court.2. In the meanwhile, the decree-holder starte...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Yadav Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR90; 1978MhLJ609
Naik, J.1. In this revision application at the stage of admission, rule has been granted only on the point of sentence.2. The accused-revision petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code for having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,286 between February 4, 1971 and February 4, 1972, while serving as a Secretary of the Vivid Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Nagarsul. He was convicted for the said offence by the learned Magistrate and as observed by the learned Magistrate inspite of the old age of the accused as this was a second conviction of the accused for a similar offence, the learned Magistrate thought that leniency was not justified and he, therefore, sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal against that conviction and sentence while maintaining the conviction an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »