Mumbai Court August 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anandrao Namdeo Jachak Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1979
Reported in: 1980MhLJ661
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner is challenging in this petition an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Poona Division, Poona, reversing the decision of the Deputy Collector that the petitioner did not hold any surplus land.2. The Sub-Divisional Officer who made an enquiry into the holding of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner in terms of dry crop land came to 71 acres and 5 gunthas, while he was entitled to hold 96 acres of dry crop land. He, therefore, passed an order that the petitioner does not hold any land in excess of the ceiling area fixed by the First schedule to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Ceiling Act''). While computing the total holding of the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer excluded certain lands which stood in the name of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are niece and nephew respectively of the petitioner. Respondents No. 4 is the daughter of the...
General Films Distributors Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT68(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and the petitioners, inter alia, carry on the business of distribution of British films in India. The petitioners are in this line for last over 30 years and their main activity has been the distribution of British feature films from United Kingdom. 2. On March 11, 1969, the petitioners entered into an agreement with Cromption Group Limited in England and by the said agreement, the British Company agreed to grant to the petitioners exclusive right to distribute British films. The petitioners were given the right to distribute the films for a period of 5 years from the date of delivery of first print. In the year 1969-70, the Government of India informed the petitioners that permission to import films will be granted provided all the shares of the petitioner Company are held by Indians. In pursuance of this direction from the Government on December 9, 1970, the petitioners converted entire share-h...
Sitaram Hari Salunkhe Vs. Laxman Rambodh Dubey and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom55
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Small Cause Court Bombay in Miscellaneous Notice No. 960 of 1976 decided on 19th November 1976. Respondent Laxman Dube filed an application under Section 41 of the Bombay . Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 against Smt. Parvati w/o Shankar Salunke and four others, who are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Shankar Salunke. The said application related to the delivery of possession of the Stall bearing Municipal No. C/2180/3(A) 86-384-A/86 situate on Jagannath Shankar Sheth Road, Bombay. The said application proceeded ex parte against the legal representatives of Shankar and therefore the learned trial Judge made an order in favour of Laxman Dube under Section 43 of the Act on 17-9-1975. In execution of that order the present petitioner is dispossessed of the premises. It appears from the record that one Pandurang Koli at the initial stage tried to obstruct the warrant of possession fo...
Raghavendra Vasantrao Deshpande and ors. Vs. Agricultural Produce Mark ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom392; 1980MhLJ423
Chandurkar, J.1. This petition by a trader, agriculturist and commission agent is directed against a bye-law framed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee which requires the trader to collect the market fee from the purchaser and credit it with the Market Committee. The challenge is really twofold. Firstly, it is contended that the Market Committee itself was not properly constituted because the elections of three members from the traders' constituency were not held at all as those elections were stayed by an order of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1670 of 1974 and 1672 of 1974. The 2nd contention is that the bye-law amounts to an onerous burden on the Commission Agents and that it was the duty of the Market Committee to recover its own dues. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 31 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under which, according to the petitioner, it is the duty of the...
Dattu Thakye Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: 1980MhLJ522
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is an application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. By way of preliminary objection, the State contends that there being reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have been guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to grant bail particularly at the investigation and/or pre-trial state. In support, the following authorities are relied upon :(1) Naranji Premji v. Emperor, A.I.R.1928 Bom 244.(2) The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, : [1962]3SCR622 (3) Gurucharan Singh and others v. State, Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 179.3. In Naranji Premji's case supra a Division Bench of this Court observed thus :'...In exercising our discretion under section 498 we should of course, have proper regard to what is laid down in sub-section (1) or section 497 that bail shall not be granted in a case where there appear reasonable grounds...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›