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.
Contessa Knit Wear Vs. Udyog Mandir Co-operative Housing Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom374; 1980MhLJ539
Deshpande, J.1. Respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Housing Society and as such owner of a building 'Udyog Man-dir' at Pitambar Lane, Mahim. Bombay-400016. It is registered in 1968. Respondent No. 2 is its member as a co-partner tenant and as such a holder of three units, viz. Units Nos. 11 and 12 on the ground floor and Unit No. 3 on the second floor. The member appears to have purchased the units from a builder after he had already formed the society, of which he became member in the year 1971 on purchase of units. The petitioner was inducted in the Unit 3 on the second floor by the member under a leave and licence agreement dated 23-7-1972 for a period of 11 months on payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per month.2. The Society appears to have objected in writing to the petitioner's such possession on 4-9-1972 on the ground that it secured such possession without (1) its being a nominal member, and (2) obtaining prior permission as required under its bye-laws. Some civil and crimi...
P.A. Narayanan Vs. S. Shankar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom339; 1980MhLJ707
Chandurkar, J.1. The respondent No. 1, who is the owner of a flat in a building owned by the respondent No. 2, which is a Co-operative Housing Society, took a proceeding against the petitioner for possession of the flat on the ground that the petitioner, who was originally a licensee, was not entitled to be in possession because the licence was terminated. There is no dispute that under the provisions of Section 91 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as it was then in force, the dispute was referred to the Officer on Special Duty by the Registrar for being dealt with. This dispute commenced on 15th March, 1969. Prior to that, however, on 21-7-1968 the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') started ejectment proceeding under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the petitioner. It may be stated that this application for ejectment was dismissed for default on 16-8-1973. The petitioner had also made an application for fixati...
Ciba-geigy of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: 1989(25)LC428(Bombay)
B. Lentin, J.1. The petitioner (originally known as 'Ciba of India Ltd.') is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business inter alia of selling synthetic resins, hardeners and other ancillary products. The petitioner-company is a subsidiary of Ciba Geigy Ltd. referred to hereafter as 'the foreign Company') organised under the laws of Switzerland and having its registered office at Basle, Switzerland. The foreign Company is the registered proprietor in India of certain trade marks, namely, Aerolite, Melocol, Melolam, Resicart and Araldite.2. By an agreement dated 24th March, 1971 (referred to hereafter as the 'first main agreement') entered into between one Cibatul Ltd. and the petitioner-company (then known as 'Ciba of India Ltd.'), the latter agreed to purchase from Cibatul Ltd. two types of resins known as 'Urea Formaldehyde' and 'Melamine Formaldehyde' on certain terms and conditions. By a tripartite agreement dated 7th December 1971 (re...
Nivrutti Nana Waghmare Vs. Narayan Mahadeo Mokal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom250
1. The petitioner before this Court was admittedly a tenant in respect of the suit premises which consist of a single room tenement, being room No. 12, Chawl No. 42, situate at Kol Dongri, Andheri, Bombay. The Chawl belongs to the present respondent No. 1, who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the respondent',2. By a notice dated 15-10-1969 the respondent terminated the petitioner's tenancy and demanded the arrears of rent due from the petitioner. However, it is clear that even before this notice, an application was filed by the petitioner, along with the other tenants of the chawl, for fixation of standard rent in respect of the various tenements in the chawl including the suit premises. In those proceedings for fixation of standard rent, the Court also passed an order fixing interim rent with effect from 1-5-1969 at the rate of Rupees 8-00 P. M.3. Later on, on 1st February, 1971, the respondent gave another notice to the petitioner. In the notice the fact that the tenancy was termi...
Tejoomal Lakhmichand Vs. M.J. Talegaonkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom369
ORDER1. In June 1950 the Plaintiffs purchased from its then landlords an immovable property with a building thereon situated at Hamam Street, Bombay. At that time the Bombay Zionist Association was shown as a tenant in respect of a part of the second floor of the building (hereinafter called 'the said premises'). When the plaintiffs sent letters of attornment to the various tenants in the building, the letter of attornment addressed to the Association was signed by its then Secretary. In March, 1964 the Plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the Association and filed a suit against it in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for its eviction. In the written statement filed by the Association in that suit it was contended that the Association was an unregistered association and that the suit as filed against it was not maintainable. The plaintiffs then sought an amendment of the plaint so as to make the suit representative in character. The amendment was not allowed. The plaintiffs filed a ...
Tukaram Laxman Since Deceased by His Legal Representatives and ors. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR17
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. This petition arises out of a proceeding for summary eviction of the respondents under section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') from Survey No. 14- an agricultural land (area 40 acres, and 4 gunthas) of Village Lohgaon, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad.2. It is not now in dispute that the petitioners Tukaram and Bajirao (since deceased), predecessors in -title of the present petitioners were declared entitled to get occupancy status in respect of the filed in question under section 61(1) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grant Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Inam Abolition Act'). This order was made on 7th October, 1961 and accordingly, the occupancy price has been deposited in two instalments by the petitioners on 1-3-66 and 10-2-68 respectively. An application came to be made on 18th December, 1968 by the petitioners for summary eviction of the respondents who had unsuccessfully claimed to b...
Rambhau S/O. Pundlik Wagh Vs. Consolidation Officer, Buldana Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR447
V.V. Joshi, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the orders of the respondent No. 2 dated March 18, 1973 confirming the scheme for consolidation of lands for the village Wadshingi in Jalgaon Jamod taluka of Buldana district under Section 20(1) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act).2. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 own certain fields at village Wadshingi. Petitioner No. 1 Rambhau is the father of petitioner No. 2 Mukund and the petitioner _No. 3 Sanjay is the son of petitioner No. 2 Mukund. The field survey No. 42/1-B belonging to the petitioner No. 2 lies sandwiched between the two fields survey No. 42/1 and survey No. 42/2, to the north and south of the field 5. No. 42/1-B of petitioner No. 2 respectively, and these two fields survey No. 42/1 and survey No. 42/2 belong to respondent No. 3 Shivshankar. The other fields of the p...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Alok Exports Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom280; 1989(24)LC677(Bombay)
Kania, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgments delivered by Pendse, J. in Misc. Petn. No. 1479 of 1979 (1980 Cen. Cus. 32-D) and Misc. Petn. No. 1114 of 1979 respectively. Appeal No. 338 of 10979 arises from the judgment in Misc. Petn. No. 1479 of 1979 and Appeal No. 339 of 1979 arises from the judgment in Misc. Petn. No. 1114 of 1979. Both the appeals raise common questions of law and the difference in the facts is not material from the point of view of the questions involved for decision. We, therefore, propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.2. As the main judgment has been delivered by Pendse, J. in Misc. Petn. No. 1114 of 1979, it will be more convenient to first deal with the facts in Appeal No. 339 of 1979. The respondents herein, who were the petitioners in the said petition, are a partnership firm registered under the Indian PartnershipAct, 1932, and carry, on business as exporters of drugs and chemicals. They are registered with the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›