Mumbai Court March 1979 Judgments
Gangu Pundlik Waghmare Vs. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom264; 1979MhLJ555
ORDER1. The applicant is the wife of non-applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant). The non-applicant has filed a petition in the Court below seeking divorce from the applicant under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of desertion and adultery. It is alleged that the applicant is leading adulterous life with non-applicant No. 2. This petition was filed on 18th July, 1975. The applicant appeared in the lower Court and before filing her written statement, made an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite and for expenses of the litigation to be had from the non-applicant. In this application she alleged that she had no independent means of income for maintaining herself or to meet the expenses of the proceedings. She, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.200/-a month by way of maintenance and Rs.300/- for meeting the expenses of the proceedings. The non-applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sumani Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas547(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner herein, Sumani Private Ltd., is the transferor-company seeking amalgamation with Lalitmani Private Ltd., the transferee-company, as per scheme of amalgamation formulated by them, Ex. A to the petition. 2. When the matter came up for admission and directions on 20th October, 1978, before Mrs. Sujata Manohar J., it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that under s. 394(1), second proviso, of the Companies Act, 1956, the official liquidator is required to make a report to the court only in respect of company which is being wound up and not in respect of company which is a going concern, and in support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the decision of a single judge of the Calcutta High Court in Marybong & Kyel Tea Estate Ltd., In re [1977] 47 Com Cas 802 (Cal). In view of this contention, Mrs. Sujata Manohar J. directed that the official liquidator need not make any report under s. 394(1) at this stage. The matter now comes up for considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. B.B. Vagyani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR272; 1980MhLJ325
Naik, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to whether a notice of change reducing the number or working days from six to five days a week and converting the sixth working day into a day of leave without wages would be a change within the meaning of Section 9A read with the fourth schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The question arises under the following circumstances: The petitioner Cooper Engineering Limited is a company manufacturing diesel oil engines, looms etc. situate at Satara Road in the District of Satara. It appears that because of the serious slump during the years 1969-70 by March 1970 as many as 5,500 diesel oil engines which were manufactured by the factory remained unsold and the number went to 12,000 by the end of May 1970. Having regard to this state of slump in the manufacturing industry all over India, while some of the factories actually closed business, it appears that the petitioner-company tried to negotiate with their employees in a...
Tag this Judgment!Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. M.V. Raghwan Iyer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1979
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2289(Bom)
1.This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing or setting aside the impugned passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Drawback Department), viz. the 1st respondent, the Appellate Assistant Collector of Customs, viz. the 2nd respondent, and the Union of India, viz. the 3rd respondent, and for an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant the refund of Rs. 54,308.50 to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner-company carries on business of manufacturing automobile and other tyres and selling the same in India and abroad. On about 24th November, 1966, the petitioner shipped for export 371 tyres of the value of Rs. 1,08,820/- on board the vessel s.s. 'Effigyni'. Excise Duty was payable at all material times on the tyres manufactured by the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Under the provisions of the Act and/or under the Customs Act, 1962 and/or the rules made thereunder, manufacturers such as the petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!HusseIn Khan and Mohamed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1248
B.N. Deshmukh, C.J.1. This application has been referred to the Full Bench as it was felt that there is apparent conflict between an earlier Division Bench judgment in Criminal Application No. 2380 of 1976 and the view expressed by the Division Bench which passed the reference order in the present application,2. The main point refers to the correct meaning and interpretation of Clause 37 of the Maintenance of Internal Security (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order').3. The facts which are not in dispute and which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the point are these: The petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal cases, being cases Nos. 1411 of 1974 and 1412 of 1974. The first was under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Guests Control Order. The second prosecution was under Clause 8 of the Maharashtra Food Rationing (Second) Order. The petitioner was convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!HusseIn Khan Mohamed Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR262
B.N. Deshmukh, C.J.1. This application has been referred to the Full Bench as it was felt that there is apparent conflict between an earlier division Bench judgment in Shri, Chandiram v. Datwani v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) Criminal Application No. 2380 of 1973, decided by Chandurkar and Shah JJ., on August 18/19, 1976 (Unrep.) and the view expressed by the division Bench which passed the reference order in the present application.2. The main point refers to the correct meaning and interpretation of Clause 37 of the Maintenance of Internal Security (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order').3. The facts which are not in dispute and which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the point are these : The petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal cases being cases Nos. 1411 of 1974 and 1412 of 1974. The first was under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Guests Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Manik Patil Vs. Sojabai Manik Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom301
Deshmukh, C.J.1. The point that is referred to the Full Bench is as follows:--'Whether the word 'custom' or 'usage' in Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, includes within its sweep the rules of Bombay School of Hindu Law or the interpretation of the text thereof by Courts?'When the Reference was opened before us by Mr. Choudhari for the appellant-original defendant, he wanted to argue that there was a custom of adopting boys who have completed the age of fifteen years among the community of the party, in that village. It is because of this point, which he raised in this second appeal before the learned Single Judge that the matter was referred to the Division Bench, and by the Division Bench to this larger Bench.2. We, however, find, on examining the pleadings by the parties, that the appellant-defendant has nowhere pleaded in the written statement that there is a custom in the area to which he belongs or in the community to which he belongs or the family f...
Tag this Judgment!Trivikram Vs. Vithalrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom1; (1980)82BOMLR253; 1979MhLJ614
Chandurkar, J.1. This first appeal which arises out of execution proceedings and is filed by the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor has been placed before the Full Bench because Vaidya J., who heard the appeal, found that a Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhagwan Shankar v. Rajaram Bapu, : AIR1951Bom125 , may not be good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran, AIR 1982 SC 1737 and since he further found that the Full Bench decision in Bhagwan Shankar's case was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Narhari v. Pannalal : [1976]3SCR149 .2. As we shall presently point out, the question involved in the appeal which necessitated the reference to the Full Bench relates to the executability of the decree passed by the Bombay High Court on its Original Side against a judgment debtor who was then resident in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and who had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar Vs. Kisan Namdeo Pawar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom148; (1980)82BOMLR137; 1979MhLJ687
ORDER1. The present petition questions the order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76, exercising powers of revision, against the certificate Issued by the District Deputy Collector under Section 88-B (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That exemption certificate was granted on December 26, 1959 whereby it was certified that the present petitioner trust is an institution for public religious worship and as such is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the entire income of the lands mentioned in the schedule appended is appropriated for the purposes of the trust and thus the conditions to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 88-B are satisfied by the trust. Respondent No. 1 Kisan is concerned with survey Nos. 77, 78 and 83, while respondent No. 2 Shripati is concerned with survey No. 231 of Village Supe, which four survey numbers are included along with other survey numbers in the schedule. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Dattu Dnyanu Padalkar Vs. Hari Natha Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom247; (1980)82BOMLR269; 1979MhLJ628
Deshmukh, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application has been referred to the Full Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as he found that there was conflict of views between two Division Benches of this Court on the real meaning and interpretation of Section 88 (1) (a) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act').2. The facts in this case do not seem to be in dispute. We will refer to some of the Vat Hukums of the erstwhile Kolhapur regime. It is enough to state that in the case of all public trusts, the Kolhapur Darbar was managing the properties, and by orders passed from time to time the mode of management and control by the Darbar over them were indicated. It will be equally clear from the referring judgment that after the merger of Kolhapur State with erstwhile Bombay State and the present Maharashtra State, the properties of the Devasthan in question were being let out on Eksali basis on auction by the Collector of Ko...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »