Mumbai Court July 1978 Judgments
The Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR390
Naik, J.1. By this petition the petitioners challenge the notice of demand dated July 25, 1972, served upon them by the respondent No. 1 - Municipal Corporation. Sholapur.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these : In the city of Sholapur there are five mills viz. (1) The Lakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd., Sholapur; (2) The Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd., Sholapur ; (3) The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. ; (4) The Narsinggirji Mills Ltd., and (5) The Jam Shri Ranjitsingji Spg. & Wvg. Company Ltd. All these five mills together formed what is called, 'The Sholapur Coal Committee' several years back. We are told at the Bar that that Coal Committee was formed in 1943. The said Sholapur Coal Committee had come into existence with the directive of the Central Government to facilitate the Government Coal authorities to book coal wagons in lots. The coal wagons were received in the name of the Coal Committee as per instructions of the various Mills. This Coal Committee was give...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Manga Mahajan and ors. Vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ526
ORDERJahagirdar, J.1. An order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jalgaon under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Cr, P. C, 1973, is challenged in this petition by ten petitioners. They are the tenants of house No. 66 situated at Polan Peth, Jalgaon and owned by the first respondent in this petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'). According to the petitioners, the respondent served upon them a notice on 9th July 1970 asking them to vacate but they did not comply with this notice. On 19th July 1974 the Chief Officer of Municipal Council of Jalgaon served a notice on the respondent asking him to pull down the building on the ground that it was dilapidated and it was in a dangerous condition. No action was taken immediately by the respondent on this notice issued by the Municipality, but nearly after two years he made an application to the District Magistrate of Jalgaon for taking action under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. In due course this application was forwarde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Shriram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1978
Reported in: 1980CriLJ13
Masodkar, J.1. All these three matters have been filed by the State and they arise out of a trial of six respondents-accused upon the allegation that at village Kanfodi on September 2, 1969 these accused were the members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object voluntarily caused grievous hurts with-dangerous weapons to P.W. 1 Ramdas and his brother P. W. 2 Jagannath,. both sons of P. W. 8 Tukaram.2. That case .which was registered as Criminal Case No. 442 of 1970 had a very chequered course. The Magistrate concerned framed a charge against all these respondents mentioning therein that they caused hurt to one Tukaram Bokade and omitting to mention the names of Ramdas and Jagannath. The offences with which these respondents were charged were under Section 148 and Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the prosecution evidence, by the judgment of December 22, 1970 the learned Magistrate recorded conviction under Section 326 read w...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Ganpat Khot Vs. Anusayabai Anna Khot (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ67
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. Twelve pieces of lands situated at Villages Walva and Bavchi in Walva Taluka of Sangli District were the subject-matter of the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Walva, Division Sangli, registered a case, being Criminal Case No. 5 of 1977 in respect of the said lands. The preliminary order of his being satisfied that there is an apprehension of a breach of peace was made on 29th September, 1977. Thereafter, on recording evidence and hearing the parties, he passed an order on 29th December, 1977 that the petitioner before me who was Party No. 1 before him was in possession of the lands in dispute. Accordingly he issued an order prohibiting respondent No. 1 before me and Party No. 2 before him from disturbing the possession of the petitioner. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') in Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Yeshwanta Pandu Bhavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR688
Vaidya, J.1. The above Second Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, dated April 6, 1971, confirming the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar dated March 24, 1970, declaring that the respondent-plaintiff was the owner of 3 acres 5 gunthas of land out of 4 acres 17 gunthas situated on the southern side of the current of the stream adjacent to survey No. 117 and directing the State Government to give possession of 3 acres 5 gunthas of the land to the plaintiff, dismissing his prayer regarding 1 acre 12 gunthas, giving liberty to the defendant-State Government to lease out that portion of land 1 acre 12 gunthas as per the provisions of Rule 41 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1921 and the provisions in Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, if the Collector of Ahmednagar so chooses to do, and modifying the injunction which the learned Civil Judge had granted restraining ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjilal Vs. Gulabrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom44; 1978MhLJ850
ORDER1. The facts in this revision application are no more in dispute and raise a short question of law.2. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in the premises in suit On 28th October 1974 the plaintiff served a notice to quit upon the defendant calling upon him to quit and hand over possession on 30th November 1974. The rent agreed in respect of the premises was Rs. 50/-per month. On 1st November 1974 the defendant paid rent for the month of November 1974 which was received by the plaintiff. On 2nd December 1974 it is alleged a payment of Rs. 50/- was received by the plaintiff from the defendant. Later a cheque was also received from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 150/-on 25th March 1975. In the meantime, that is, before the receipt of the cheque for Rs. 150/- a suit had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 17th Feb. 1975.3. The plaintiff filed this suit for possession against the defendant and the defendant by his written-statement Ex. 17 raised several other p...
Tag this Judgment!Barsi Municipal Council Vs. Shankar Irana Gundel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom125; (1978)80BOMLR718
1. The above second appeal filed by the Barsi Municipal Council, at the material time constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 up to June 15, 1966 and thereafter under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, raises two points, firstly, whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit for a declaration that the levy for apportionment of property or other taxes on the plaintiff respondent in respect of the suit property is illegal and ultra vires and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from recovering from the plaintiff the arrears and future taxes; and, secondly, whether the two Courts below were right in holding that the levy of the taxes on the respondent-plaintiff was ultra vires the powers of the Barsi Municipal Council.2. The plaintiff filed the suit on Nov. 11, 1967, seeking the above relief's 011 the basis of the following allegations :--3. City Survey No. 2555 is an open plot in Barsi Town belonging to the plaintiff. On J...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dattatraya Budukh Vs. Vishwanath Pandharinath Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom1; (1978)80BOMLR539; 1979MhLJ112
1. The above second appeal raises an interesting point of law under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and arises out of a suit for possession filed by respondent No. 1 Vishwanath Pandharinath Joshi.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under:--3. One Mathurabai, the widow of Narhar Joshi, died on or about May 29, 1965. The plaintiff Vishwanath and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are the nephews of her deceased husband Narhar. The genealogy of the family, as se out by the learned District Judge in his judgment, is as follows:--NARAYAN|____________________________________________________| |Abaji Pandharibnath| |__________________________ __________________________________________| | | | | | | Narhari Mathura Devi- Godubal wife Pitff. Deft. Deft. Def.Died on das of Shankar No.4 No.5 No.629.5.1965 Deshmukh |_________________________________| | |Dattatraya Kashi Sundra4. The suit lands were owned by Narhar. After his death, Mathurabai was in possession thereof. On November 19, 1945, sh...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Shriram Hotel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ271
Jahagirdar, J.1. The respondents in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were prosecuted at the instance of the Food Inspector of Poona in Criminal Case No. 83 of 1974 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Daund. In the town of Daund accused Nos. 2 and 3 are carrying on the business of a restaurant which was joined as accused No. 1 in the trial Court. On 18th August 1'973 the Food Inspector purchased, among other things, 600 grams of jilebi from the accused. One-third of the same, namely, 200 grams of jilebi was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it contained a non-permitted coal tar dye (metanil yellow).2. On these facts, the accused were prosecuted as mentioned above. The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 13th Nov. 1975 acquitted the accused mainly on one ground that the quantity which was sent to the Public Analyst was not in compliance with what he regarded as the mandatory requirement...
Tag this Judgment!Norman J. Hamilton and anr. Vs. Umedbhai S. Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR340; [1979]49CompCas1(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 53,500 together with interest. 2. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with the defendants dated 23rd December, 1966, where under the plaintiffs had agreed to sell to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 - '1,000 ordinary and 2,300 redeemable cumulative preference shares 'of a company known as A. MacRae and Co. Private Ltd. for a total price of Rs. 3,10,000. Out of these shares, 125 ordinary shares and 520 redeemable cumulative preference shares belonged to one Mrs. Khambatta, who was a non-resident. Hence it was agreed between the parties that if there was any difficulty in the sale of the shares belonging to Mrs. Khambatta, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 would purchase in any event 875 ordinary shares and 1,780 redeemable cumulative preference shares of the company from the plaintiffs for a price of Rs. 2,77,500. Out of this purchase price, Rs. 10,000 was to be paid on the signing of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »