Mumbai Court November 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.
Dharmarao S/O Bhagwantrao Atram Vs. Returning Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR544
Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner, who is an elector in the Sironcha (Scheduled Tribe Reserved) Constituency of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondent No. 2 Penta Rama Talandi to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Sironcha Constituency, on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 was wrongly rejected.2. The petitioner is the cousin brother of respondent No. 3 and was one of the four proposers, who proposed the candidature of respondent No. 3.3. The election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Sironcha Constituency was held in May 1980. For the said election, last date of filing nomination papers was May 2, 1980, the scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed on May 3, 1980, the date of withdrawal of candidature was May 5, 1980, and the poll was scheduled to be held on May 28, 1980.4. Sironcha constituency was reserved for scheduled tri...
Dilip Shankar Koli and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ500
1. This is a second application for bail by original accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 7 viz., Dilip Shankar Koli, Vishnu Haram Rajkumar, Bhaskar Krishna Uparkar, Hirakant Shankar Koli, Anthony Pascal Koli and Hareshwar Gotya Shankar. Earlier, these very accused persons along with one Ashok Balkrishna Vaiti (accused No. 8) had moved this Court for a similar relief of being released on bail. The said proceeding was numbered as Criminal Application No. 532 of 1980. By its detailed order dated April 24, 1980, this Court rejected the application for bail by the aforesaid accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7. This Court, however, granted bail to the aforesaid original accused No. 8 Ashok Balkrishna Vaiti on certain terms and conditions. This order of April 24, 1980, refusing to grant bail to the present accused persons was challenged by them before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1892 of 1980. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court passed the following order on the said petiti...
Ghanshyamdas Gopaldas Mohta and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR1013(Bom); 1981MhLJ560; [1983]14TAXMAN525(Bom)
Ginwala, J.1. The only point which arises for our consideration in the writ petition is whether the appeals filed under s. 86 of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961, are governed by these provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act'). The facts relevant for the purposes of question under considerate may briefly be stated.2. It appears that the ITO had forwarded to the TRO, a certificate under the provisions of s. 222 of the I.T. Act, in the year 1964, for recovering a amount of Rs. 10,370.45 from the original petitioner, namely, Gopaldas Bulakhidas Mohta. After adjustments from time to time, the demand came to be reduced to Rs. 4,365 in the year 1972. In order to recover this amount, the TRO, who is respondent No. 2 herein, attached two pieces of agricultural lands bearing survey No. 14, admeasuring 4 acres 31 gunthas and survey No. 18/1 admeasuring 1 acre 5 gunthas. Both situated at Tajnapur. On June 22, 1972, the said Officer i...
Dena Bank Vs. G.S. Sawhney and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom161
ORDER1. The petition is to quash the orders dated 8lh May, 1968, 30th July, 1968, 19th Nov., 1968, 13th Jan., 1971 and 21st Jan., 1972 and for an order for the refund of fine of Rs. 3,99,000/- paid by the petitioners to the Customs Authority, and for costs of the petition.2. The facts that give rise to the petition are that on or about 7th Apr., 1967 an Import Licence was issued to the firm known as Messrs. Industrial Engineering Co. (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as 'the said firm)' On 14th Oct., 1967 the said firm applied to the licensing authority for amending the licence to cover the import of mutton tallow. By a letter dated 8th Nov., 1967 the section officer of the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports returned the licence to the said firm duly amended and revalidating the same up to 7th June, 1968. Thereafter the said firm by a letter dated 12th Feb., 1968 addressed to the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports acknowledged the amendme...
Kesharbai Jagannath Gujar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom115; (1981)83BOMLR159; 1981MhLJ1
Deshmukh, C.J.1. This petition has been referred to a larger bench by a Division Bench by its Order dated 16th September 1980. The only question involved in the petition relates to the correct meaning and Interpretation of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Since the facts were undisputed and that was the only question involved, the petition itself has been referred to the Full Bench.2. The facts leading to this writ petition are not in dispute. One Jagannath Gujar died in 1934 leaving behind his widow Kesharbai. Kesharbai inherited three Gut Numbers from her husband together admeasuring 26 H. and 39 Rs. The amended Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 came into force on 2nd October 1975 with retrospective effect from 26th September 1970, which was the appointed day. Kesharbai fifed her return within time. She stated that she had adopted a son Jitendra on 7th February 1964. She also claimed that her adopted son was entitled to one-half s...
Laxman Limbraj Rankhamb and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom175a; (1981)83BOMLR166; 1981MhLJ566
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In these two writ petitions the Ordinance issued by the Governor viz. the Maharashtra Ordinance No. VIII of 1980 providing for the dissolution of Osmanabad and Parbhani Zilla Parishads, temporary postponement of elections and appointment of Administrator is challenged by the office bearers as well as Councillors of the Osmanabad and Parbhani Zilla Parishads. The main challenge to this Ordinance is based on the legislative competence of the Governor to issue such an Ordinance which provides for postponement of the General Elections to these two Zilla Parishads up to and inclusive 30th June, 1981 i.e. beyond six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature which is scheduled to assemble on 8th Dec., 1980. The said Ordinance is also challenged on the ground that it is issued in the mala fide exercise of the power conferred upon the Governor by Article 213 of the Constitution of India.2. It is an admitted position that these two Zilla Parishads were constituted some tim...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Dattatraya Varnekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1717
1. This is an appeal by the State for enhancement of the sentence. The accused was charged under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and Section 85(ii), (iii) and (ix) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. On a plea of guilt he was convicted for the offences under the said sections. Taking some factors into account such as the accused being the first offender, his father having died, the accused having sisters yet to be married and the accused being a student also yet to be settled down and married, the learned trial Magistrate imposed a sentence on the accused till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count, in default, rigorous imprisonment for four months under each count. The gold which was seized had already stood confiscated under the Customs Act.2. Hearing Mr. H. A. Solkar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. V. H. Gumaste, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused, I am not at all satisfied with the sentence imposed by the learned tr...
Shakharam Keshav Yadav Vs. Rajaram Ranglal Sarda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1980
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR484
R.A. Jahagirdar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge a decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Sangli in Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1978 by which the learned Extra Assistant Judge reversed the decree of the dismissal of the suit passed by the Court of the first instance which was the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) of Sangli. The facts are very few and may be mentioned. It may also be stated that the relevant facts, which I now proceed to mention, are not in dispute.2. The petitioner is a tenant of five rooms in a building bearing City Survey No. 937/B and situated at Sangli which is a district place. Of the five rooms, four are situated on the first floor of the building while one room is on the ground floor. All these five rooms are admittedly used for residence by the petitioner and the members of his family. From the rent which is being paid by the petitioner, that is Rs. 24/- per month, it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›