Mumbai Court February 1980 Judgments
A.M. Patel and Co. and ors. Vs. Narayan Gopal Basatwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom367; 1980MhLJ413
ORDER1. A decree was passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hingoli, in Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1972 in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners on April 20, 1974. The decree was in the sum of Rs. 4381.12 p. which amount included costs and interest. In 1974 the decree-holder, namely, the respondents, filed an execution application being Darkhast No. 67 of 1974 to recover the amount of the said decree by attachment and sale of the movable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors, namely, the petitioners. It appears that a sum of Rs. 3,100 was paid by the petitioners to the respondents in part satisfaction of the said decree. On January 3, 1976, the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975, (Maharashtra Act No. III of 1976) was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette after having received the sanction of the Governor. This Act replaced the Maharashtra Debt Relief Ordinance, 1975 (Maharashtra Ordinance No. VII of 1975) which was promulgated by the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Shipping Development Fund Committee Vs. M.V. Charisma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom42
ORDER1. The 2nd defendants are the owners of the 1st defendant vessel. The 1st defendant vessel is mortgaged to the plaintiffs. It is presently anchored in the port of Bombay. The suit is filed in the Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court for realisation of the mortgage security. In the written statement the 1st and 2nd defendants contend that this Court in its Admiralty a Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It is this preliminary issue that now comes up before me.2. The history of this Court's power to entertain suits for realisation of the security in ship mortgage suits in its Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction may briefly be traced. In the (English) Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, Sections 66 onwards dealt with ship mortgages. Section 71 conferred upon the mortgagee the power to sell the mortgage security without the intervention of the Court. Under the provisions of Section 11 of the (English) Admiralty Courts...
Tag this Judgment!Putalabai Lakhu Pawar and ors. Vs. Shiva Dhondi Pawar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom9; (1981)83BOMLR149; 1980MhLJ547
1. One Lakhu Bala Pawar was the owner of the suit land bear-fag Gat No. 353 admeasuring 1 acre 25 gunthas situated at village vahagaon in Karad Tahsil of Satara district. On 23-6-1964, Lakhu sold this land to both the defendants for an amount of Rs. 700/-(vide Ex. 46). On the same day the defendants executed another agreement Ex. 41 in favour of Lakhu agreeing to reconvey the land to Lakhu for the same amount after the end of the year after repayment of the amount.2. This transaction was validated under Section 81AA of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Fragmentation Act') by paying the prescribed penalty. In fact I shall point out that this validation was also not at all necessary in this case. After the death of Lakhu all his heirs and legal representatives who are plaintiffs 1 to 8 in this suit gave a notice dated 3-1-1968 to the defendants for reconveyance of the land after offering the amount of Rs. 700/-...
Tag this Judgment!Ankush Hiraman Magar and ors. Vs. Thakubai Maruti Tupe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom350; (1981)83BOMLR152
1. The question that arises for determination in this Second Appeal is, 'Whether on an application for an exemption certificate being made under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (Bom. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act'), during the pendency and final disposal of the said application, the land which is the subject-matter of the said application either does not vest in a tenant under Section 32 of the said Act or if it has become vested, it becomes divested by reason of the making of the said application, so that if, during the pendency of these proceedings, the land is incorporated within the limits of a Municipal Corporation the tenant loses the benefit conferred upon him by the said Section 32?'.2. Before discussing this question, it will be convenient first to set out the facts which have given rise to this debate. The appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of one Hiraman. Hiraman and the se...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Mansingh Aher Vs. C.R. Bansi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1171
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Respondent No. 1 C. R. Bansi, who is the father of Alka has filed the present complaint under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Bombay. Before filing this complaint necessary sanction from the State Government was also obtained.2. It appears from the record that the accused-petitioner filed an application dated 6th October, 1978 raising a contention that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case as the accused and the complainant were residing outside the jurisdiction of that Court. A contention was also raised that the complaint was barred by law of limitation and hence it was liable to be dismissed. These were the only contentions raised before the trial court. At this stage it is conceded by the learned Counsel that the complaint was filed within the period prescribed.3. After hearing both sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the complaint was filed with...
Tag this Judgment!Sandoz (India) Limited, Bombay Vs. Sandoz Employees Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)ILLJ71Bom
ORDER(Dictated in Open Court on 19-2-80)1. By the present complaint filed by the Complainant-company under S. 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the complaint is that the respondent which is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act representing some of the employees of the complainant-company is alleged to have indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule III of the Act. The relevant item reads :'To advise or actively support or instigate any strike deemed to be illegal under this Act.'2. To have clear picture of the happenings as are alleged to have occurred, optionised version of the statement of facts as it appears in the complaint would be useful. On 2-7-79 the respondent-union is alleged to have forwarded a charter of demands on behalf of the employees which charter of demands according to the complainant contained unreasonable and exhorbitant demands. This was followed by supplementary charter of demands dated 3-8-79. On 5-8-79 a notice was given to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Anantrao Lokhande Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ125; 1980MhLJ849
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is placed before us for hearing in view of the reference order dated the 18th December, 1979 passed by Kotwal, J. The Applicant accused and Original accused No. 2 Shankar are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Shoukat on 23rd September 1978. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the prosecution story because we are not concerned with the merits of the case at this stage.2. It appears from record that after completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay who in his turn committed both the accused persons to stand their trial before the Sessions Court Greater Bombay. Thereafter a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code was framed by the Sessions Court. This charge was framed on 9th November, 1979 and on the same day the Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Cadbury Fry (India) Private Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: 1990LC219(Bombay); 1990(46)ELT7(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business of manufacturing chocolates, cocoa powder and other related products in its factory at Bombay. The petitioner- Company is associated with a company known as 'Cadbury Limited (U. K.)', (referred to hereafter as 'the U. K. Company'), incorporated in the United Kingdom. The principal raw material used in the manufacture of the petitioner's products is cocoa beans which are imported from abroad as they are not produced in India. Ever since the petitioner- Company commenced manufacturing its chocolate products, it has, from time to time, been purchasing cocoa beans in the following manner.2. The U. K. Company sent to the petitioner-Company a weekly report on the price trends of cocoa beans in the international market and specifically advised the petitioner-Company in respect of the appropriate time for purchasing the petitioner's requirements of cocoa beans. Based on such reports and advice, the petitioner-Company asked the...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Srichand Kewalramani Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Poona ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom11; 1980MhLJ534
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which is involved in this petition is whether the limitation for an appeal filed under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against a bill of demand, in which the owner of the property also challenges the determination of rateable value, commences from the time when the complaint of the owner against the rateable value is rejected by the Commissioner.2. The petitioner is the owner of a bungalow within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Poona. The Municipal Authorities determined the rateable value of the bungalow at Rs. 8640/- on 13th July 1968 after the Assessor rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner challenging the proposed rateable value.Thereafter on 14th Aug. 1968, the petitioner received a bill of demand demanding general property tax and conservancy tax as well as education tax computed on the basis of the rateable value of Rupees 8640/-. On 28th August 1968 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamkant Wamanrao Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1388
Dharmadhikari, J.1. From the records it appears that Respondent No. 3 Govinda Bhika Mankar had filed a private complaint against the Petitioners and some others under sections 436, 342, 382, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It further appears from the record that after the Complainant and 2 other witnesses were examined, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, vide his order dated 8th January, 1979 directed issuing of processes against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Ultimately by an order dated 13th July, 1979 the case was committed to the Court of Session against all the accused persons as offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. When the trial at the Sessions Court was likely to commence. Accused persons filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik that at that stage the prosecution cannot be permitted to examine witnesses who are not examined bef...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »