Mumbai Court January 1980 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.
Budhmal Khushalchand and anr. Vs. Bansilal Gulabchand Agarwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1980
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR11
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition by the original plaintiff is directed against the decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Dhulia, in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1973 from decree dated 23rd November, 1972 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 387 of 1970.2. Original proceedings were under the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit premises were originally leased to one Gulabchand Agarwal, who died sometime in 1965-66 leaving behind him three sons Bansilal, Rupchand and Javarilal. Plaintiffs filed the instant suit against said three sons for possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent and also on the ground that the heirs were not entitled to the tenancy right as provided under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit was decreed.3. Appeal against the said decree by the original defendant No. 3, Bansilal, was partly allowed by the learned Assistant Judge. In appeal, the suit for possession was dismissed, standar...
Balvantsingji Anand Vs. Bhagwantrao Ganpatrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom333
ORDER1. Though this Writ Petition is directed against a finding which appears to be concurrent finding regarding the nature of right had by the petitioner in the suit premises, I have found it necessary to examine the same in details and upon the examination I have no other option but to come to the conclusion that the ultimate finding cannot be sustained.2. Prima facie the question appears to be very simple. By an agreement purported to be one of leave and licence dated 31-5-1969, the respondent allowed the petitioner to continue the use of the suit premises, which consists of a portion of open land for a period of 320 days. That licence was terminated by a notice dated 21-3-1970. I am told that thereafter the respondent has even filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said land. I am told that it is Spl. Civil Suit No. 69 of 1977, but long before that on 8-9-1971, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel, and Lodging House Rates (Contr...
Rango Laxman Pingle Vs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom220; 1980MhLJ605
Manohar, J.1. The appellants in the two Letters Patent Appeals are the son and grandsons of one Laxman Pingle. On or about 2nd March, 1922 a Special Civil Suit No. 341 of 1922 was filed by Khanderao Mehendale against the sons of Laxman Pingle for recovery of a sum of about Rs. 18,150/- together with interest thereon on the basis of a pro-note. The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration. Ultimately an award was given in this arbitration pursuant to which a decree in terms of the award was passed on 21-3-1922. Under the terms of the decree, the defendants, that is to say, the sons of Laxman Pingle were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff Mehendale and in satisfaction of the amount, Pingles were directed to deliver possession of an immovable property viz. Survey No. 15 from Donaje village in Haveli Taluka, Poona District to the plaintiff decree-holder. It was further provided that the plaintiff decree-holder would enjoy the property till the end of 196...
isak Chanda Palkar Vs. Nyamatbi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1180; 1980MhLJ287
Dharmadhikari, J.1. It is an admitted position that respondent Nyamatbi was married to the petitioner on 4th September 1953. It is also an admitted position that thereafter the petitioner remarried and had a second wife. It appears from the record that the respondent-wife was living with her parents and the petitioner was paying Rs. 30/- per month to her towards wards maintenance. After coming into force of the new Cr.P.C. in 1974 the respondent filed an application under section 125 of the Code on or about 16th of April 1974. As soon as this application was filed, the petitioner husband pronounced divorce on 14th June 1974 and also offered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards agreed Mehr and Rs. 150/- as maintenance for Iddat period of three months. This amount was sent by the money order. The said money order was refused by the respondent wife some time on 17th of July 1974. Thereafter the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 2,650/- in the Court on 13th August, 1974.2. In the a...
Ratiram Pundlik Khedkar Vs. Pundlik Arjun Khedkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom79
ORDER1. This revision application is filed by the original defendant No. I against an order passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Akola allowing the application of the plaintiff (non-applicant) for temporary injunction. The trial Court had rejected the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction, but in the appeal the order was set aside and the learned Extra Assistant Judge having allowed the same, the original defendant No. 1 preferred the present revision application.2. The defendant No. I is the adopted son of the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of the suit fields and be filed the suit only for perpetual injunction praying that the defendant No. I should not disturb his possession over the suit fields, which he tried to do a few days prior to the filing of the suit with the help of some persons.3. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and an ex parts temporary injunction and was granted by the trial Court. When the defendant No. I pu...
Talakchand Jayachand Doshi and ors. Vs. Bhaichand Gautamchand Doshi an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom19; 1981MhLJ931
Jahagirdar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the order of Vaidya J. dated 12th of Aug., 1975 by which he dismissed First Appeal No. 153 of 1971 preferred by the appellants in this appeal. The appeal before Vaidya J. arose out of an order passed in execution started by the respondents in this appeal. The appellants are the judgment-debtors and having failed both before the executing court and before Vaidya J., they have now preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.2. In Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1953 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Solapur, one Bhaichand Gautamchand Doshi obtained a decree based upon an arbitration award in the sum of Rs. 13,100. That decree provided that the defendants in that suit were to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 13,100 with interest thereon from the date of the filing of the award which was 26th of Nov., 1953. The decree provided for the payment of the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 250, the first of...
Kamarunisa Vs. Farid Gafur Sayad and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1390
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this case the marriage of petitioner Kamrunnissa with respondent Farid Gafur Sayed took place in the year 1973. Thereafter she was divorced on 10th of February 1976. The petitioner filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and for her son on 6th April, 1976. Ultimately after scrutinising the whole evidence on record the learned trial Judge granted Rs. 60/- per month as maintenance, so far as the son is concerned. However, the petitioner's application for her own maintenance was dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order she filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court also dismissed the application filed by her obviously relying upon the decision of this Court in Ruksana Parvin v. Shaikh Mohammad, . It is this order which is challenged in this application. With the assistance of the Counsel we have gone through the whole record.2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ba...
Attarsing and ors. Vs. Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sach Khand Shri Huzur Apa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom24; 1981MhLJ328
Masodkar, J.1. All these three appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment, though they arise out of three special suits initially filed by the present appellants in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, with regard to properties, being Survey No. 95 admeasuring 14 acres and 12 gunthas, Survey No. 94/A admeasuring 25 acres and 6 gunthas and Survey No. 96 admeasuring 22 acres and 22 gunthas. These properties were subjected to the process of orders made under the provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Atiyat Courts, after inquiries, made orders directing delivery of possession against the present appellants. It is enough to observe, as it is not disputed, that under the Act, after the initial orders were made, the appellants took up appeals, as was provided under the Act, and having failed, eventually filed writ petitions, being Special Civil Applications Nos. 1938 of 1966, 1954 of 1966 and 1955 of 196...
Zenna Sorabji and ors. Vs. Mirabelle Hotel Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom446
ORDER1. These two petitions arise out of the judgment of the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 343 of 1973 and Appeal No. 316 of 1973. These two appeals in their turn arose out of the R.A.R. Suit No. 510/4293 of 1963 filed by the Trustees of the Lotus Trust, Bombay. The suit was filed by the Trust for eviction of the various defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against all the relevant defendants. Appeal No. 316 of 1973 was, therefore, filed by the original defendant No. 2 and Appeal No. 343 of 1973 is filed by the original defendant No. 3. The appeal of original defendant No. 2 was dismissed by the Bench of the Small Causes Court (hereinafter, the 'Bench'); whereas Appeal No. 343 of 1973 was allowed by the Bench. Hence Spl. C. A. No. 537 of 1975 has been filed by the Trust against the decree in Appeal No. 343 of 1973; whereas Civil Revision Application No. 62 of 1975 has been filed by the original defendant No. 2 against the decree in Appeal No. 316 of 19...
Jagdishchandra Popatlal Dodhiwala Vs. Khandesh Education Society and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom26; 1980MhLJ306
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Dhule, below Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 6 of 1978 preferred by the Board of Trustees of a public trust Khandesh Education Society for opinion, advice or directions under Section 58A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter the Act). The very short but rather interesting question arising herein and on which, I am Informed by the learned Advocates, there is no direct authority of this Court, is;'What is the scope and content of Section 56A of the Act and what are the limitations thereunder?'It is needless to narrate all the facts, circumstances and the unfortunate controversies between the parties. Suffice to note that Section 56A application in this case sought directions on:(a) whether it would be proper to convene an annual general meeting during the pendency of an injunction order and/ or during the pendency of a writ petition; (b) whether an annu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »