Mumbai Court October 1980 Judgments
The Children's Educational Uplift Society and Anr. Vs. Kaushalya Govin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom364
ORDER1. This revision application is filed by the original defendant in the following circumstances.2. A plot of land was allotted by the Government to the present respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit out of which the revision application arises. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.3. On the said plot of land, received the plaintiff as an allottee from the Government, a structure was constructed by the plaintiff in the year 1954 and the same was let out by him to the defendants at an agreed rent of Rs. 250/-per month. It appears that along with the structure same furniture was also let out to the defendants.4. Dispute started between the parties sometime in the year 1964 by virtue of which the defendants made an application for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises. The trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 100/- per month but in appeal the amount was increased to Rs. 250/- per month, which was the agree...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M/S Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT309(Bom)
ORDERShri M.G. Vaidya, Appellate Collector1. This is an appeal presented by M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. They claim that the addition of landing charges to the invoice value is incorrect and the c.i.f. invoice value converted at the appropriate rate of exchange itself should be accepted as assessable value. They make it quite clear that this appeal is a test case though they have not yet followed up with similar appeal on their other importations.2. In their original application before the Assistant Collector, the appellants relied upon Section 2(23) of the Customs Act for their contention that landing charges ought not be included in the assessable value arrived at under Section 14. The said section 2(23) actually defines import and not 'Place of importation' as indicated by the appellants. Of course what the appellants intend to convey is that since India includes territorial waters of India vide Section 2(27) and since import is complete as soon as the goods are brought into Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Shantinath J. Upadhya and anr. Vs. Ajit N. Upadhya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1980
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR464
R.D. Tulpule, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 87/70 was filed by minor Ajit through his guardian and next friend, father Sobhiraj against his two brothers Shantinath and Duryodhan.2. House No. 227 situate at Jaysingpur, originally belonged to four brothers, Shantinath, Duryodhan (defendant Nos. 1 and 2), Ajit and one Gajanand. They effected a partition of this property in the year 1951 by which, each of them was given a block or portion along with the open space behind it. House No. 227 consisted of a building in the front portion and open space in the rear. Different sub-numbers were given to the portions to be shared between the brothers and the portion which went to the share of Duryodhan was allotted Block No. 227/4.3. Part of this rear portion of the block was leased by defendant Duryodhan to his brother Shantinath. That was given to him for the purposes of construction of a shed and running a flour mill. He was also permitted it appears to construct a privy block therein. In a suit f...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Shafi Suleman Kazi and Etc. Etc. Vs. Vilas Dhondu Kavishwar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom27
Deshpande, J.1to 5. x x x 6. Shri M.R. Kotwal, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant State. Sprat from challenging the finding as to negligence of Defendent No. 1 contended that running of hospitals is part of the regal functions of the State and the State can never be held liable for the tortuous acts of its servants when the complained acts of negligence are claimed to have been committed by the servants in the discharge of such regal functions. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court (Baidya & naik. JJ.). in First Appeal No 620 of 1968 with First appeal No, 852 of 1968 dated 15-4-1977. *. The judgment no doubt, supports his contention. One Chandrikabai in that case died in the Government owned hospital after her delivery and sterilisation operation,. The two doctors attending to her operation were alleged to have sutured the wound without caring to remove the cotton swab inserted during the operation. Her death was attributed to this negli...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnabai Vs. Dnyandeo Laxman Yeyale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom107
1. This second appeal is filed by original defendant No. 1 against the decree for possession passed against her by the learned. Assistant Judge, Satara. The original plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are the respondents before me.2. It will be useful to set our the genealogical table showing the relationship of the parties.MADHAVRAO|------------------------------------------| |Laxman Ramu=Gunabai| (died 7-11-97)------------------------ | | | KrishnabalDnyandeo Dattu (Deft. No. 1)(Plff. No. 1) (Plff. No.2)From the genealogy it will be seen that Madhavrao had two sons Laxman and Ramu Admittedly Ramu died before the year 1937. He had no male issue. His widow's name was Gunabai and his daughter was Krishnabai who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Gunabai died on 7th Nov., 1967. Rama's brother deo Laxman (plaintiff No. 1) and Daturu Laxman (plaintiff No. 2).3. The plaintiff's contention in the plaint was that at the time of the death Rama was joint with Laxman. According to the plaintiff on 4th...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnagri Mithai Vs. F.F. Coutinho, Member Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR347
Masodkar, J.1. These three petitioners question the order made by the three-members Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal in the matter of decision of their appeals, being Second Appeals Nos. 189, 394 and 2081 all of the year 1973. There was fourth matter before that Bench being Second Appeal No. 1168 of 1969 with which we are not concerned.2. For the purpose of deciding the present petition it is not necessary to eventually refer to the merits of challenge in the matters of assessment of tax, for Mr. Manohar, who argued the matter has restricted the challenge to the making of the order by the three-Member Bench, in these appeals. The only two points raised in this petition are, firstly, the counsel contends, that in view of the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, referred to hereinafter as the Act, and regulations framed thereunder, being regulation No. 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal Regulations, 1960, referred to hereinafter as the regulations, and in the...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalabai Vs. Ramdas Manga Ingale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom187; 1982MhLJ507
1. This is a Second Appeal filed from the decision given by the learned Assistant Judge, Dhule, in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1976 on the District Court file, holding that the appeal before him had abated with effect from 8-7-1977. In order to understand the points in controversy the following facts may be noted.2. The appellant before me is one Kamalabai who was married to Ramdas Ingale on 13-5-1956. A child, daughter by the name of Pratibha, was born to the said couple on 7-8-1959. It appears that some time in 1962, according to the husband, the wife suffered from some illness and a matrimonial petition was filed by the husband in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay on the ground of wife's insanity or unsoundness of mind. On 10-4-1964, the said petition was withdrawn. Between September, 1965 and February, 1968, Ramdas proceeded to the United Kingdom fur further studies. After his return he filed a matrimonial proceeding viz., a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ganpat Raut Vs. Habiba Yusuf Landye and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom371; (1980)82BOMLR663; 1981MhLJ261
ORDER1. This Petition raises a question with regard to the scope of Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the import of that section.2. The question arises in the following circumstances:Lands Survey No. 25. Hissa No. 1 and 2 admeasuring 2 acres and 8 3/4 gunthas of village Kase in Sangameshwar Taluka, District of Ratnagiri, was leased to Narayan Ganpat as a tenant, Lands belonged to Respondent Habiba. Habiba filed a proceeding against Narayan under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act claiming possession on the ground that she required the land for bona fide personal cultivation. That was Tenancy Suit No. 303 of 1962. It is common ground that Habiba succeeded in that suit and was rewarded with an order of possession of those lands. Accordingly, she was actually put in possession in the year 1964. Since then she has been cultivating this land personally about which there is no dispute.3. On the 9th April, 1973 Habiba executed a sale deed...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Maganlal Patel and anr. Vs. Ishwarlal Ghelabhai Choksey an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom248; 1981MhLJ552
1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the order of the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Dated 4-10-1974 raising a question as to the registrability of an award, made in reference by the Court in pending proceedings, under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under:--The plaintiffs had filed a suit being suit No. 825 of 1967 against 15 defendants in respect of certain property. On 24-10-1969, the parties to the suit filed consent terms agreeing to refer to the arbitration of Advocate Shri P. C. Kapadia all questions or issues arising out of pleadings of the parties including those specifically set out in the said consent terms. Initially defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were joined as defendants to the suit. However, subsequently defendants Nos. 4 to 15 were joined as defendants to the suit as it was disclosed that they had interest in the property.3. The Arbitrator Shri Kapadia made his award on 27th June...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Bale S/O Fateh Mohammad Vs. HafizoddIn S/O Dadubhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1980
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR545
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner Shaikh Bale son of Fateh Mohammad filed a complaint against 16 persons on the allegations that they have committed offences under sections 395, 488, 494, 506(2), 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this complaint process was issued on 3-2-1975. Some of the witness were also examined on behalf of the complainant. Later on the Magistrate who issued the summons was transferred and succeeded by another Magistrate. The successor Magistrate after going through the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the earlier order passed under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code was ab initio void and illegal, and therefore, after scrutinising the whole material he came to the conclusion that the complaint filed is without any substance. Hence he dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Being aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »