Mumbai Court June 1980 Judgments
Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR284; 1981CriLJ209
ORDER1. The Rule in this application raises a narrow question whether the petitioner-accused has, by his act or omission, withheld the water supply to the tenants, which is declared to be an essential supply under Explanation to Section 24 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.2. The petitioner is a landlord of seven buildings, known as Ramanagar at Goregaon. There are 293 tenants in those buildings. The landlord used to charge an extra amount of Rs. 5/- per month to each of the tenant over and above the rent towards water charges. In or about April 1974, the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs. 15/- per month from each of the tenants towards water charges on the basis that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has raised the rate of water charges. The tenants resented the increase in the water charges. The tenants filed application in the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent. Interim standard rent was fixed at 80 per cent of Rs. 66/- per month ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Kalicharan Yadav Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1603
ORDER1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition has impugned the Judgment and Order of the learned Sessions Judge, Thane, dated 23-11-1979 whereunder the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, was confirmed.2. The petitioner, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Accused', was charged before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, under Section 7(i) and 2(i)(c) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.3. The prosecution case was that the Accused was the supplier of buffalo milk to the workers of Warden Company situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. On 6-11-1975 the Accused supplied buffalo milk to the said Company. The Company as usual distributed the milk amongst its workers. Sometime later it was noticed that some of the workers vomitted and it was suspected that they has suffered from food poisoning. As a result of a Complaint filed by the Company, ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT468(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is one more petition arising out of a claim for Excise Duty recovered by the Union of India on the price of vegetable oils manufactured by the petitioners, after taking into account the expenses of packaging, freight marketing and distribution expenses. Since a major part of the controversy involved in the petition is concluded by a decision of this Court which held that post-manufacturing expenses cannot be added to the price of the manufactured article for the purposes of determining Excise Duty chargeable in respect of the article, a detailed reference to the facts is not necessary.2. Briefly it requires to be mentioned that the price of Vanaspati manufactured by the petitioners is regulated and controlled by the Union of India under the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947 and that the price at which the manufactured product was to be sold to the consumer was fixed by the Union of India. The break-up of the price so fixed is not available and therefore i...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinkant Keshavlal Parikh Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation for G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom37
Dharmadhikari, J.1. It is an admitted position that the respondents the Bombay Municipal Corporation have acquired the land belonging to the petitioner, under Section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The possession of the land was taken on 24th Aug., 1965 though intimation about the intention, to acquire the Land was communicated to the appellant on 27th Mar., 1965. It appears that vide letter dated 12th April 1965 i.e. even before taking over of the possession of the land, the appellant claimed compensation, for the land acquired. Unfortunately till 1st of June 1968 no reply was given by the Corporation authorities to the claim made by the appellant nor the Bombay Municipal Corporation had made an offer regarding the payment of compensation till that date. After receiving the said letter as the appellant was not satisfied with the offer made by the Corporation he filed an application under Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act on 31st July 1968 making a claim...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Sarda (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Kisan K. Borade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1980
Reported in: [1980(41)FLR168]; (1981)ILLJ190Bom; 1980MhLJ721
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on a business of manufacture of bidis. At one of the centres where the manufacture of bidis was undertaken by the petitioner and which was situated at village called Manegaon in Taluka Sinnar, District Nasik, the respondent was admittedly working as a labourer till he voluntarily resigned on 27th December, 1972. Claiming that he had put in service of 20 years, the respondent-employee claimed a gratuity of Rs. 1,200 under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gratuity Act'). For the purposes of this petition we are not concerned with the several defences raised as to the maintainability of the application made by the employee before the controlling authority under the Gratuity Act, namely, the Judge of the Third Labour Court at Bombay. The only contention material for the purpose of the present petition was whether the provisions of the Gratuity Act were applicable in the...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai A. Sheth and Others Vs. N.D. Nirgudkar, 2nd Income-tax Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)41; [1981]128ITR87(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN381(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This group of eight petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutionality of sub-cl. (iii) of cl. (14) of s. 2 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as substituted by the Finance Act, 1970 (Act 19 of 1970), which read with s. 45 of that Act operates to levy capital gains tax on transfer of certain agricultural lands. According to the petitioners, all of them owned agricultural lands situate within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and all these lands were at the relevant time subject to payment of land revenue to the Government. In some of the petitions, it is averred that at first cultivation of para grass and later of rice and vegetables was carried on on the lands. In the affidavits in reply these facts are either not admitted or the petitioners are put to the strict proof of these facts. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated before us that for the purpose of these petitions the lands in question in all...
Tag this Judgment!Zabulal Durgalal S/O. Kanhayalal Hiralal Srivastav, Since Deceased by ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1980
Reported in: 1981MhLJ202
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. An important question with regard to the powers of the Authorised Officer under the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), falls for consideration in this petition. The question is whether the Authorised Officer is entitled to evict a person in occupation of mortgaged property inducted on the premises by the mortgagee in possession.2. One Zabulal, the original debtor, who is now no mere and is represented by his legal representatives who are hereinafter referred to as 'the owners of the property' had mortgaged a house used for a shop purposes at Ambajogi by registered deed of mortgage dated 21st December, 1957 in favour of the present respondent No. 3, the creditor, for a sum of Rs. 4700/-. Admittedly the mortgagee inducted the present respondent No. 4 as a tenant in the premises. Though the exact date when the premises were let out to the tenant cannot be ascertained on record, there is no dispute that the tenant has been in occ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Babloo Tukaral Vs. G.V. Javalkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom72; 1981MhLJ525
Bhonsale, J.1. Two interesting points of considerable importance, which may have important bearing on the relationship of the Railway Administration with their retired employees arise for determination in this petition filed by one Arjun Babloo Tukaral, an ex-employee of the Western Railway, Bombay. In order to appreciate these points, necessary undisputed facts which lie within a narrow compass may be stated as follows:--The petitioner Shri Arjun Babloo Tukaral, who was employed as a Gang Man under the Western Railway at Parel and was allotted a railway quarter being Quarter No. 171, Room No. 14, Bandra (West), Bombay-400 050, it is alleged, without payment of any rent on account of his employment. Admittedly the petitioner retired from the service of the Western Railway on December 31, 1977. Even after his retirement from service the petitioner did not vacate the said quarter in spite of the notice being served upon him on January 17, 1978, calling upon him to hand over the vacant po...
Tag this Judgment!Venubai Widow of Bajirao Ingale and anr. Vs. Saraswatibai Alias Sumitr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1980
Reported in: 1980MhLJ907
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This appeal by the original plaintiffs Venubai and Kamlabai, mother and daughter respectively, against the rejection by the Courts below of their claim for partition and separate possession of their purported share in the suit joint family properties raises an interesting as also a stimulating question of Hindu Law viz.:Can a Hindu widow who has already, by virtue of section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, carved out in her favour her deceased husband's interest in the joint family properties, make a subsequent claim, based on section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to a share in the interest of another coparcener having, at the time of his death, an interest in the remaining properties of the joint family ?2. First, a look at the genealogy followed by a narration in brief of the undisputed facts Rajaram (died in 1958).Renubai (defendant no. 2)|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Bajirao(died on 1-9-1939)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›