Mumbai Court July 1980 Judgments
Avadhani Meena Ramchandra and Etc. Etc. Vs. Maharashtra State Board of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom126; 1981MhLJ54
Mohta, J.1. These writ petitions and others in which my esteemed brother has delivered judgment just now were heard together. I am in agreement with the view that the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977, (for short 'the Regulations') are in the nature of bye-laws and not statutory rates and that they are liable to be struck down as void to the extent they prohibit disclosure and inspection of answer books. I proceed to deal with the remaining topic relating to prohibition on revaluation.2. In my judgment, apart from the fact that the prohibition on revaluation of answers is to a great extent integral part of the prohibition on disclosure or inspection of answer books in the whole scheme of the Regulations, it is also manifestly unjust and illegal and has to be struck down. Indeed logical end of permitting inspection and disclosure of answer books and other documents is to permit revaluation.3. Now it is beyond dispute, that every student has a r...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal K. Chadha Vs. B.S. Subhedar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1799
ORDER1. This Revision Application raises an important question in regard to the powers of the Court to cancel bail under S. 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.2. Shri Samant, on behalf of the respondents at first stated that after the Rule is served in this matter upon the respondents, he would argue the matter fully; but later on he gave up this submission and stated that he would accept the Rule and argue the matter fully and final order an the is Revision Application should be passed.3. The prosecution case is that on 17-7-1980 a truck bearing No. ASZ-6377 was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as 'D.R.I.') in collaboration with the Officer of the Land Custom Station, Patropole, on the Indo-Bangla Desh border, and it was found to contain 59 cases of snake skins valued at Rs. 44.40 lakhs along with 263 cases of fruit. The said 59 cases were declared by one Laxman Kumar Mishra of Calcutta to contain sweetlime. The 59 cases as also ...
Tag this Judgment!Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and ors. Etc. Vs. the Maharashtra State Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom95; 1981MhLJ587
Deshpande, J.1. This group of petitions raises common questions as to the students' rights to (1.) revaluation of their answer papers, and (2) inspection thereof and other documents connected with entries as to their appearing at the examinations, held by the State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', in or about the month of March, 1980, in accordance with the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'.2. Narration of facts of Writ Petition No. 1906 of 1980 will be enough to appreciate the points raised before us. The petitioner appeared for the 12th Standard; Examination in the month of March, 1980 from Ram Narain Ruia College, Bombay, with Science subjects as his optionals. He claims to have had a very brilliant career and had 'intende...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Pirsaheb Sheikh Vs. Laxman Bapu Bhosale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom168; 1981MhLJ352
ORDER1. All the three Authorities below have held that although the petitioner Abdul Karim Pirsaheb Shaikh is an agriculturist from Karnataka State, however he will not be deemed to be an agriculturist within the State of Maharashtra unless he personally cultivates the agricultural land in the Stale of Maharashtra. This view of the Authorities below is challenged in this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Few facts leading to this application are as under:--2. In the first instance, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the land Survey No. 64, from village Bale, Taluka North Sholapur, on Feb. 3, 1967 for a consideration of Rupees 21,500/- and Rs. 2,500/- were paid by the petitioner by way of art earnest. The petitioner had given a notice on June 16, 1967 to sell the land in his favour to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Further, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the land to respondent Mo. 4 for an amount of Rs. 28,000/-. It is, therefore, a Spec...
Tag this Judgment!Apar (Pvt.) Limited Vs. S.R. Samant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1980
Reported in: [1980(41)FLR213]; (1980)IILLJ344Bom
Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing conductors, heavy duty underground power and control cables, welding electrodes, etc. The second respondent was working as an employee in the carpentry department of the petitioner's factory at Vithalawadi in District Thane. The third respondent is a registered Trade Union representing the employees in the petitioner's factory. Industrial Court passed an order holding petitioner guilty of an unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule 4 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (in short Maharashtra Act 1, 1972) and directing it to implement a settlement dated 3-8-1974 with effect from 15th October, 1975 till the date of closure of the company, which we are informed in the end of October, 1977. By the present petition this order is impugned.2. Before proceeding with the points raised it would be necessary to set out certain relevant backgro...
Tag this Judgment!Sumintabai Ramkrishna Jadhav Vs. Rakhmabai Ramkrishna Jadhav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom52
1. This is plaintiffs appeal dismissing her suit for possession of the suit property. The plaintiff's claim in the suit pertaining to the lands in question was based on the following facts:2. The property in dispute consists of S. No. 219 and S. Nos. 420 to 423 in village Nandur-Ghat, Taluka Kaij, District Bhir. For the purpose of understanding the rights of the parties, it would be useful setting out the admitted genealogy which is as follows:-- KUSHABA | -------------------------------------------- | | Yesu Limbaji died in 1956 died in 1969 (damb) | Sonabai (died in 1969 Deft. 1 pending the suit | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Subhadrabal Lochanabai Ramkrishna Mathurabai Vishnu Deft. 3 Deft. 4 died in 1944 Deft. 6 died in 1947 | Rakhamabai Deft. 2 | Suminatabai Pltff.3. As shown in the genealogy, Limbaji had 1/2 share in the property after the death of Kushaba, Limbaji died in the year 1943 leaving behind his widow Sonabai (defe...
Tag this Judgment!Kazi CumrddIn HusseIn Vs. Rajendrakumar Maneklal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom17; 1981MhLJ239
ORDER1. This application under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts.2. Few facts leading to this application are as under :A piece of land admeasuring 1500 sq. Feet from City Survey No. 1789 situated at Bombay parel-sewree Division Municipal street No.89, Tokersey jivraj Road, sewree, Bombay-400 015 was leased out to the petitioner some where in the year 1924. The respondents are admittedly the owners of the said piece of land. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner raised a structure on the said piece of land at his own costs3. Respondents-plaintiffs filed suit No. 2257 of 1955 against the petitioner and one mohmed Gafoor in the City Civil Court at Bombay for a declaration that the petitioner and others trespassed on the suit land. The said suit was contested by the petitioner denying the claim of the respondents. The petitioner also filed suit No 63 of 1957 against the...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar S. Vaidya Vs. Ganpat S. Gore and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom190
ORDER1. This is an unfortunatepiece of litigation. The petitioner before me was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He got a decree for possession in his favour. The decree was set aside by the appellate Court. As will be seen from the final order, the petitioner is succeeding so far as the present petition is concerned. However, as to when the present petitioner will reap the fruits of this decree is anybody's guess.2. The facts of the case are as follows :--(a) This litigation arises out of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The property in question is part of final plot Nos. 606/A and 606/B, numbered as C.I.5. Nos. 1225/A-l 1225/1/B2. The property in dispute originally admeasured 11,000 sq. feet situated at a very prestigious road called Ferguson Road in Poona. The property originally belonged to one Trimbak Hari Awate. On 28-4-1947, the said Awate executed a simple mortgage in respect of the entire property...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. M.C. Chitale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1980
Reported in: [1980(41)FLR199]; (1981)ILLJ462Bom
Mohta, J.1. Point of some importance regarding the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, ('Bonus Act' for short) to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is involved in the present petition.2. To discuss the core question, it will be necessary to notice some basic facts and so also the background, which is as under :3. Two trade unions, viz., Maharashtra Veej Mandal Nokar Sangh and the Maharashtra Veej Mandal Kamgar Sangh demanded bonus for the years 1965-66 to 1969-70 at 20% of the annual earnings in terms of the Bonus Act and this led to a reference under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the State Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner-Board took the stand that the Bonus Act does not apply to it in view of the exemption granted under S. 32 of the Bonus Act. On quantum of the claim, the stand was that there was no 'available surplus' and nothing beyond the minimum prescribed could be given After ransa...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom271
1. The appellant before me in this first appeal, since deceased, was the plaintiff in the trial Court who had filed the suit in question for declaration that the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Ceiling), Nanded, dated 31st August 1965, holding that the plaintiff was a surplus holder of an area to the extent of 52 acres and 39 Gunthas of land was illegal, null and void. He also attacked that part of the same order by virtue of which the Deputy Collector did hot give the plaintiff an opportunity to select Survey Nos. 76, 77 and 31/A admeasuring 59 acres and 65 Gunthas in all to be declared as surplus area. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this appeal.In this appeal initially Mr. Deo struggled to contend that the said piece of land under Survey Nos. 76, 77 and 31/A could not be said to be belonging to the plaintiff having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the alternative, he contended that even assuming that those lands...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »