Mumbai Court April 1979 Judgments
Chandrabhan Chunnilal Gour Vs. Shrawan Kumar Khunnolal Gour and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom48; 1980MhLJ690
ORDER1. This Revision Application has been filed against the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issue regarding the validity of the transaction of sale between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The facts leading to the present Revision Application shortly stated are as follows:Non-applicant No. 1 has instituted the suit in the Court below against the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, for a decree for possession of the suit house from defendant No. 1 along with Rs. 210/- as damages for use and occupation from 26-9-1972 to 26-6-1973. The suit house originally belonged to defendant No. 2 which is admittedly a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff purports to have purchased it from defendant No. 2 under a registered sale-deed on 26-9-1972, Defendant No. 1 who is alleged to be in actual possession of the suit house is said to be a near relative of one Chuniyabai w...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Etc. Vs. Durgadas Shankar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom93; (1980)82BOMLR76
Madon, J.1. In a Writ Petition filed on the Original Side of this High Court by one Durgadas Shankarrao Rege, the First Respondent in both these appeals, against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the State of Maharashtra, the learned single Judge of this High Court held that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 298, Section 299 and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 301 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Bombay Act No. III of 1888) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were void as infringing the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and set aside a notice dated February 1, 1974 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner under Section 299 of the Act against the First Respondent, intimating to him that he intended to take possession of unbuilt open land belonging to the First Respondent falling within the regular line of the street after the expiry of seven days from the service of the said notice. The learned Judge also issued a writ direct...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrishna Vasudeo Datye Vs. Bhalchandra Anant Sawant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR142
Lentin, J.1. [After dealing with the allegations of corrupt practice, which are not relevant for the present report, His Lordship continued.]: -On behalf of respondent No. 1, it was contended by Mr. Singhvi, that the petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, inasmuch as the petition should have been presented on or before August 11, 1978, viz. within forty-five days from June 27, 1978 being the date of the election of respondent No. 1. It was urged that the petition having been presented on August 21, 1978 on which day it was entered in the Special Register the mandatory provision of Section 81(1) of the Act, was violated which merited a dismissal of the petition.2. Section 81(1) deals with the presentation of petitions and, in so as is material, provides that an election petition may be presented within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate.3. The petition w...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Maruti Bhagwat Vs. Kantilal Khemchand Gujar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom79
1. An interesting question of law which I thought had been settled by series of decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court has been resurrected by Mr. Ajit P. Shah appearing in support of this second appeal. That question is whether a lease created by a mortgagee in possession is binding upon the mortgagor after the mortgage is redeemed. This question arises because the appellant who was defendant No. 7 in the suit details of which will be given shortly has been inducted in a part of a house bearing No. 650, situate in Ganpati AH in Wai town of Satara District by a sub-mortgagee. The entire house originally belonged to one Moti Bhiwa who mortgaged the same to one Narayan Janardhan Dhone who will hereinafter be referred to as 'defendant No. 1'. Defendant No. 1 in turn sub-mortgaged two different parts of the property to two different persons. One part was mortgaged to one Khemchand Rajaram Gujar who will hereinafter be referred to as 'defendant No. 6.'Defendant No. 6 let ou...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR176
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated March 30, 1970, in an appeal by the assessee under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Hindustan Lever Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', completed construction of a building on two plots bearing Nos. 165 and 166 in the month of June, 1963. The two plots were earlier rated for the purposes of municipal assessment at Rs. 59,715. After the construction, a notice was issued by the Corporation to the assessee to show cause why the rateable value should not be raised to Rs. 17,36,420 with effect from June 16, 1963. On March 3, 1964 the assessee complained against the proposed enhancement. The said complaint was tried and finally disposed of by the Corporation on August 21, 1964, fixing the rateable value at Rs. 12,16,285 by adopting the comparative method. This assessment was challenged in app...
Tag this Judgment!Shaniwar Dhondu Dharnekar Vs. Prabhavati Chandrakant Patange and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom276; (1980)82BOMLR104; 1979MhLJ836
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 is the landlady of Survey No. 47 admeasuring 22 acres and 2 gunthas plus 2 acres Pot Kharab and survey No. 17 admeasuring 33 gunthas situated at village Akorli in Panvel taluka of Kolaba district The petitioner is admittedly a tenant on the said lands. Respondent landlady filed an application for possession of the lands in dispute under the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 25 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act'). It is contended by the landlady that the tenant had made defaults for three years from 1969-70 to 1971-72 and intimations have been given on each default and ultimately the tenancy was terminated and thereafter the present application under Section 14 read with Section 25 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act is filed.2. The Additional Awal Karkun, Panvel who made enquiry in respect of the said application framed necessary issues and recorded evidence of the parties and on co...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Bhaurao Dabhade Vs. Baburao Baburao Dabhade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR116; 1980CriLJ256
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging an order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 9th Court, Pune, directing the present petitioner in a proceeding under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to pay an amount of Rs. 75/- per month by way of maintenance to respondent No. 1 who is the father of the petitioner.2. The proceedings before the trial Magistrate commenced on an application by respondent No. 1, the father, claiming that he was entitled to maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/- from the present petitioner because he had no source of income and on account of old age and physical infirmity, he was not able to earn any living.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a fairly well placed person in the employment of the Central Government in the Customs Department and his total monthly salary is about Rs. 1200/- per month. The main ground on which the application was contested by the present pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kekoo J. Maneckji Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR109
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on April 24, 1978 directing that a letter of request might be issued to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington (U.S.A.) to get the necessary documents from a bank in America.2. The present petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Pillman Aircraft Co. is alleged to have a savings account in the Washington Mutual Savings Bank, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., being account No. 121730. The Central Bureau of Investigation at whose instance the impugned order is made by the Magistrate is investigating into an offence under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973, and Sections 120B, 162 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code against M/s. Pillman Aircraft Co., Bombay, and its p...
Tag this Judgment!Kekoo J. Maneckji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ258
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 482 Cr. P. C. as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court Esplanade, Bombay, on 24th April, 1978, directing that a letter of request might be issued to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington (U. S. A,) to get the necessary documents from a bank in America.2. The present petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Pillman Aircraft Co. is alleged to have a savings account in the Washington Mutual Savings Bank, Seattle, Washington, U. S. A., being account No. 121730. The Central Bureau of Investigation at whose instance the impugned order is made by the Magistrate is investigating into an offence under Sections 120-B, 162 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code against M/s. Pillman Aircraft Co. Bombay, and its partners. According to the investigating agency, the Pillman Aircraft Co. and its ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Nanu Choudhari Vs. Surgana Village Panchayat, Nasik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom354; (1980)82BOMLR126
Pratap, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the very constitution of the village panchayat of village Surgana, District Nasik, contending that (a) it is not a validly constituted panchayat under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and (b) respondents Nos. 7 to 12 who are its nominated members are not entitled to take part in the affairs of the said panchayat.2. Facts giving rise to this petition areas follows:--3. The petitioner is a resident of the aforesaid village Surgana. The said village has a panchayat divided into four wards. Elections to this panchayat were held in May 1978. Ward No. 1 had two seats and Wards Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had three seats each -- thus in all eleven seats. From Ward No. 1 respondent No. 2 was elected, from Ward No. 2 respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were elected, from Ward No. 3 respondent No. 3 was elected and from Ward No. 4 respondent No. 6 was elected. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »