Mumbai Court February 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.
The Municipality of Trimbak Vs. Ramchandra Kisan Aher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom18
1. The short question for decision in this appeal is whether the word 'acquire' in this case means the acquisition by the defendant-Municipality under the Land Acquisition Act or whether it Includes the acquisition by the defendant-Municipality by way of private purchases also and this question arises in the following manner:--2. The plaintiff is the owner of City Survey Nos. 728, 729 and 730, situated within the Municipal limits of Trimbak in Nasik District, Immediately to the south and east of the plaintiff's property, there are public roads and there are open spaces, in question, on the other end of that road. These open spaces also are located within the Municipal limits of Trimbak Municipality. These open spaces are being leased out by the Trimbak Municipality for the purpose of business stalls. The plaintiff has got his shops and a rice mill abutting on that road. Previously, this road was a very narrow one and the Municipal Council decided to widen the road and that is why it ac...
Central Bank of India Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas522(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. An interesting question which lies in a very narrow compass, but is not easy of solution falls for determination in this originating summons. Before adverting to the questions which require answer, it would be appropriate to set out a few facts which have given rise to the filing of the present proceedings.2. The plaintiffs, Central Bank of India, are a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, while the defendants are the insurance company incorporated under the Companies Act. The defendants, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., do general insurance business and, inter alia, issue policies of insurance to banks, including 'bankers' indemnity policies', indemnifying the banks in respect of losses suffered by them in the course of their banking business. The plaintiffs obtained a bankers' indemnity policy dated February 2, 1972, for the period commencing from January 3, 1972, to January 3, 1973, in respect of t...
Petroleum Employees Union Vs. Industrial Court Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1980
Reported in: 1981MhLJ316
V.S. Despande, J.1. This petition raises questions as to the true interpretation of item 9 of Schedule IV read with section 26 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act' and the effect of section 34 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bonus Act.'2. The petitioner is the Union of the employees, Respondent No. 2, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' is the employer. The employees of the Corporation earning salary or wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month are also the members of this Union. An agreement was entered into between the Corporation and the union on 27th March, 1975, on the question of bonus. Sub-clause (H) of Clause II of the said agreement provided for the mode of its payment. The Bonus Act contemplates payment of bonus only to the employees earning less than Rs. 1,600/- per month in...
Tarabai Bhimgonda Patil and ors. Vs. Babgonda Bhau Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom13; 1980MhLJ566
Masodkar, J.1. This is the original plaintiffs' appeal that questions the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below in the suit initiated by them for the purpose of recovering property on the basis that upon the death of one Bhau Anna Patil on August 13, 1958, the plaintiffs inherited the same as the nearest heirs of the deceased. This entitlement was based on some undisputed facts and upon certain disputed, controversy.2. The claim to the nearest heirship to the deceased Bhau Anna Patil was based on the following genealogy:--SAVANTA|------------------------------------| | |Appa Laxman Ramgonda(died in 1912) | || -------------- | Kausablal Bhau | | |(Adoption on Bhimgonda Ramgonda | 26-6-1912) (Pltff.1) (Pltff.2) |(Died on 18-8-1958) |Nomgonda| (Died issueless)Baggonda(Deft. 1)The plaintiffs set up the claim that they are the only sons in the family claiming through Laxman and upon the death of Bhau, would be entitled to inherit allthe estate of Bhau. They sought to exclude def...
Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy and ors. Vs. Bapurao Krishnaji Bhonsale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom302
ORDER1. This petition was initially filed by the three Trustees of a Trust known as 'Jehangir Hormusjee Cama Trust' (referred to hereafter as 'the Trust'), constituted under a Deed of Settlement dated 21st Oct. 1918. The original 1st petitioner was also a beneficiary under the Trust. During the pendency of the petition, the original 1st and 2nd petitioners died and in their place the present newly-added Trustees, viz., petitioners 1 (a) to 1 (c) were brought on record. The 1st respondent is the Deputy Collector, Inami and Special Tenures Abolition Branch, Bombay City. The 2nd respondent is the State of Maharashtra.2. Under the Second Inami Grant dated 29th May 1828, referred to in Section 2 (xiii) of the Bombay City (Inami and Special Tenures) Abolition and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1969 (referred to hereafter as 'the Act'), the Trustees held Inami Tenure land bearing Cadastral Survey No. 150 of Parel-Sewri Division, admeasuring about 1821.91 square metres (equival...
K.P. Kshatriya Vs. Khandelwal Udyog Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ261Bom
Deshpande, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour refusing to make reference with regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner and the union in regard to his reinstatement and back-wages.2. The petitioner was employed as a workman with respondent No. 1. On 8-5-1975 a show cause notice was served on him in regard to certain acts of misconduct. Charges wore framed on 9-5-1975 and 11-5-1975. On 16-5-1975 the petitioner was informed that an enquiry will be held into the charges by one Dhelakia on 22-5-1975. It appears that all the workmen employed by the employer went on strike against this act of holding enquiry by the employer against the petitioner. On 22-5-1975 the petitioner did not appear at the enquiry. The enquiry officer recorded evidence of the witnesses produced before him and submitted his report to the employers. On the strength thereof, dismissal order was passed on 28-6-1975. The un...
Hirabai and anr. Vs. Babu Manika Ingale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom315; 1980MhLJ494
Masodkar, J.1. This appeal occupied considerable time of ours because of some intricate, important and thorny debate with regard to the rights of the adopted son in the adoptive family. As far as the facts are concerned, the appeal raises a very limited issue. Initially, the appeal was filed by Hirabai (widow of Harji Ingale), who was found to be the adoptive mother of respondent Babu. Hirabai died during the pendency of the appeal. Appellant No. 2 Latabai, who is a minor of 11 years of age, claims to be the purchaser of the property from Hirabai after the adoption in issue of Babu. One Digamberrao, who has not examined himself, is the guardian father of Latabai, who has, in fact, purported to take the sale of the property from Hirabai.2. The suit was initially filed by Hirabai alone, but after the institution of the suit, the so-called transfer was effected and Latabai joined as plaintiff No. 2. By the suit, the relief of cancellation of the deed of adoption and consequent declaration...
Sau, Kusum Bhimrao Patil and anr. Vs. Javahar Lalchand Katariya and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom245
ORDER1. The petitioners, in this case, claim to be the tenants in respect of the suit premises and have tried to make good their claim in a manner which has turned out to be rather quaint.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are simple.The suit premises consist of a shop in House No. 255 at Bhavani Peth, Satara, admeasuring 20 ft.x 10ft. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by my hereinafter as plaintiff or defendant No. 1 or 2 or 3 as the case may be, that is to say, with reference to their position in the trial Court.3. Defendant No. 1 was the tenant in respect of the suit premises even before the year 1959. The house in which the suit premises are situate was purchased by the plaintiff on 25-6-1959. He purchased it for Rs. 25.000/- It is contended that he spent a further sum of Rs. 45.000/- for the repairs of the same.4. On 5-9-1966 the plaintiff executed a rent note in favour of defendant No. 1 Ramchandra Narayan Deshmukh. The exact period of the rent note i...
Sarabhai M. Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. P.N. Mittal Competent Authority ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Bom)315; [1980]126ITR1(Bom); [1980]3TAXMAN541(Bom)
Divan, C.J.1. In both these special civil applications the respective petitioner-company challenges the notice of acquisition respectively issued to it by the first-respondent, the competent authority, under the provisions of Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The notices initiating acquisition proceedings under s. 269D(2) of the Act have been issued in respect of a transfer. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1394 of 1973 is the transferor and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1481 of 1973 is the transferee in respect of the transaction which was by means of a conveyance of sale dated March 30, 1973. Since both these special civil applications arise from the same bundle of facts and raise the same questions of law, it will be convenient to dispose of both of them by this common judgment. The transferor company is, what is known in the language of company law, a holding company and the transferee company is its wholly-owned subsidiary. There is no dispute on t...
Bhagwan Motiram Mali (Mahajan) Vs. Jayani Shridhar Khare and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom82; 1981MhLJ216
Chandurkar, J.1. This revision application filed by original defendant No.1 debtor has been referred to a Division Bench in view of the conflict arising out of two decisions of this court, one given by mridul J. And the other by Kantawala C.J. on the construction of the provisions of Ss. 11 and 12 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as :'the Debt Relief Act').2. The plaintiff creditor had filed suit No.101 of 1973 against the applicant debtor for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,329.90 on the strength of a promissory note for Rupees 3,000/- executed by the debtor in favour of the plaintiff on 24h Dec., 1970. In the suit the debtor raised a contention that in view of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Ordinance which was promulgated on 22nd Aug., 1975 which is now replaced by the Debt Relief Act, the debtor was a marginal farmer holding less than 1 hectare of unirrigated land and, therefore, under the provisions of the Ordinance, the debt in question stood discharged...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »