Mumbai Court September 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.
More Narayan Bhadke Vs. Shashikant Balakrishna Malkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom10; (1981)83BOMLR160
ORDER1. By this petition and under Act, 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the judgment dated Jan., 5, 1980 passed by the District Judge, Kolbaput, revering the decree passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, On June 7, 1977.2. The proceedings arise out of a suit for eviction filed by the respondent under the provisions of S. 12(3) of the Bombay Rents,. Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act), The respondent is an owner of a house bearing city Survey No. 1064 at Kolhapur with three rooms on the first floor. One room on the loft tne two rooms on the ground floor were let out to the petitioner for his residence at the contractual monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. The petitioner remained in arrears from Auig. 1, 1970 and the respondent terminated the tenancy and called upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent as required by Section 12(2) of the Rent act by notice dated Ap...
HarkishIn Lakhimal Gidwani Vs. Achyut Kashinath Wagh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1980
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas1(Bom); 1981MhLJ61
Kotwal, J.1. This proceeding depicts rather a lamentable picture when a systematic attempt is being made to linger on the proceeding which otherwise requires an immediate attention and it also has an equally disturbing feature that a responsible officer of a company wants to take an absolutely unjustified advantage of the situation resting his claim on the niceties of technicalities.2. The three termini which figure prominently in this proceeding are : (i) the company, (ii) the premises, and (iii) the employee of the company. The company is known as the English Electric Co. of India Ltd., a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Calcutta and branch office functioning at Veer Nariman Road, Bombay - 20 (shortly called as 'the company'). The premises in question comprise of a flat approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in are located at Mayfair Gardens, Little Gibbs Road, Bombay, and the third terminus is the petitioner who was at one time ...
Shambusing Dhansing Jadhavrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom331
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders holding that he is in possession of 9 Acres and 31 Gunthas which is surplus. The petitioner's total holding was complied as 64 Acres and 06 Gunthas. The petitioner was entitled to hold in his possession 54 Acres of land as permitted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.2. Two contentions were raised before the authorities below and also before me seeking exemption for twopieces of land from being considered asavailable for calculating the total holding of the petitioner at 64 Acres and06 Gunthas.3. The first contention was that the petitioner had sold on the 28th of February 1974, 14 Acres of land. This land was given subsequently Gat No. 807. The sale was for Rs. 45,000/- and it is the petitioner's contention that he was required to sell these lands to meet the marriage expenses of his sister which took place on 11th March, 1974. and that he had also given to his sister a sum of Rs. 10,0...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. V. Melnikoff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)271; [1982]134ITR583(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN63(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City II. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deceased was domiciled in India at the time of her death ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference, as they emerge from the statement of the case, are as follows: The deceased, Mrs. Margaret Melnikoff, was born in Bombay on March 15, 1910. The first passport obtained by her is dated July 9, 1924, and that passport was issued by the Czechoslovakian Republic. In this passport the domicile of the said deceased is shown as in Vienna. On February 1, 1929, the deceased arrived in India, and in May, 1929, she married George Melnikoff. The second passport obtained by the deceased is dated January 18, 1932. That passport has been issued at Bombay by the passport officer to the Govt. o...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Harshed K. Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1096
1. These eight Criminal Revision Applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the Point involved is the same and the accused in all the eight Revision Applications are also the same.2. The two accused are alleged to be the Managing Director and Joint Managing Director respectively of Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited, a Company carrying on business as money-lenders. In four Revision Applications, viz., Criminal Revision Applications, viz., Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 790 of 1979, 792 of 1979, 793 of 1979 and 794 of 1979 the charge against the two accused is under Section 19(1) read with Section 34 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act 1946, in that they failed to deliver annual statement of accounts signed by the moneylender or his agent of any amount that may be outstanding against a debtor and failed to deliver statement containing particulars, specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 to the Assistant Registrar. The charge in the remaining four Revision...
Govind Ranganath Kale Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom462; 1981MhLJ246
ORDER1. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Jamkhed, declaring him to be a surplus holder of 54 acres of land. His appeal was thrown out by the Tribunal on the short ground that it was incompetent by reason of being signed and filed by an unauthorised person in contravention of Section 44-B of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner had not filed his appeal in person, but it was filed on his behalf by his agent, the Power of Attorney holder Vitial Kale. The petitioner is one Govind. The Tribunal held that though the provisions of Civil P. C. were applicable by virtue of Section 33, Sub-section (3) and confers those powers of a Civil Court in the Tribunal while deciding the appeals, Section 44-B does not permit the filing of an appeal by a power of Attorney except in the case of a disabled person. It is this decision which is challenged before me.2. Now Section 44-B is in these terms:'Notwithsta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›