Mumbai Court December 1981 Judgments
Chandrakantrao Kishanrao Jawalkar and ors. Vs. Rama Ranganath Wagchawr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR160
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. Plaintiff's suit for specific performance was dismissed by the trial Court but is decreed by the Appellate Court and that is why defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have field this second appeal which arises out of the following facts.2. Defendants No. 1 was the owner of the suit property. He agreed to sell it to the plaintiffs, who was already in possession, on 12-7-1971 for an amount of Rs. 1,500/- and an earnest receipt, Exh. No. 34 for Rs. 250/- was executed on that day. Under the terms of the contract, an amount of Rs. 250/- was to be paid by Bhadrapad Vadya Padva and the remaining amount of Rs. 1000/- was to be paid on Diwali Padva of the same year. It was further stipulated in the earnest receipt that if the plaintiff failed to pay Rs. 250/- on Bhadrapad Vadya day, the plaintiff would forfeit his right over the suit property and would also forfeit the previous amount paid by him and there was a similar stipulation for failure to pay Rs. 1000/- on Diwali Padva day. Admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Obedur Rehman and anr. Vs. Ahmedali Bharucha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Bom120; 1982(1)BomCR430; (1982)84BOMLR310; 1982MhLJ283
Deshpande, J.1. This letter patent appeal is directed against the rejection of appeal against order being appeal No. 905 of t 1981. It is not necessary to give detailed facts of the present appeal.2. The plaintiff-appellants herein filed a suit No. 6279 of 1981 in the City Civil Court at Bombay for obtaining injuction against the defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff applied for interim injunction. That prayer for interim injuction was rejected by the City Civil Court at Bombay. Against the rejection of that prayer the plaintiff filed an appeal against order and that appeal against order was dismissed on November 26, 1981. It is this order which is being challenged in this letter patent appeal, by the plaintiff appellants.3. At the time of admissions, a preliminary objection is taken that High letters patent appeal is not maintainable. In all such matter, which came before us prior to this one, we had held so. by our orders, because, in some matters the Counse...
Tag this Judgment!Dombivli Municipal Council Vs. Sundrabai Khimji Chedha (Smt.) and Khim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR126; (1982)84BOMLR109
M.P. Kanade, J.1. The identical questions of facts and law are involved in these two criminal revision applications, hence they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The facts leading to the Criminal Revision Application No. 366 of 1981 are that the petitioner is a Dombivli Municipal Council, duly constituted authority under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The respondent is the owner and the Proprietor of the shop under the name and style, 'M/s. S.K. Cheda & Co.' carrying on business at Pitre Chawl, Phadke Road, Dombivli (East). In the course of the business activities the respondent has been bringing and/or importing goods on which octroi is leviable. The respondent is bound to pay in law the correct octroi duty to the petitioner.2. It is the petitioner's case that by the end of the year 1977, it was noticed that respondent No. 1 has failed to pay proper octroi duty on certain goods and evaded the payment thereof imported within the municipal limits betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupal Anna Bharisheth and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR340
D.M. Rege, J.1. This is a petition under Article 27 of the Constitution of India by the accused No. 1 for quashing of proceeding, arising out of a complaint filed against him by one Kantilal Parekh, 1st respondent herein, being Case No. 91/W of 1979 before the learned Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar and for setting aside the order for issue of process made therein by the learned Magistrate and also for setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and Magistrate holding that the offences mentioned in the said complaint were not bared by law of limitation.2. At the outset, it may be pointed out that although the Magistrate has issued process only against petitioner No. 1 i.e. accused No. 1 viz. Bhupal Anna Bhairsheth his two sons Ajit and Suresh who were accused Nos. 2 and 3 have also joined in this petition as petitioners. Obviously, they cannot have any grievance against the said order of process and can have no locus standi in the matter. So far as they are concerned, therefore, the r...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Tatya Chavan and ors. Vs. Shankar Yamaji Kadam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Bom52
ORDER1. This petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a pure question of law in regard to the interpretation and construction of the provision of S. 8 of the Bombay inferior village Watans Abolition Act 1958 and S. 32G (6) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948.2. Two Agricultural lands bearing Gal Nos. 71-A (S. No. 35) and 71-Bombay Tenancy Act (S. No. 34) admeasuring 18 acres and 39 gunths and 14 acres and 12 gunths respectively situated at village Bichukale, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara are the subject matter of the present proceeding. it is common ground that these lands were originally Ramoshi Watan land and governed by the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Watans Abolition Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Watans Abolition Act ) both these lands were originally held by one Tatya Martand Ramoshi (Chavan) predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Tatya died some time in the year 1970 leaving behind him the son- petitioner No. 1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Balwantrao, Since Deceased, by His Heirs and Legal Represen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR114
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. This special civil application is directed against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.') allowing a revision application and thereby reversing the order of the Deputy Collector and restoring that of the Tahsildar in a proceeding started by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of the possession of the disputed lands for bona fide personal cultivation and it arises out of the following facts.2. It may be mentioned here that original petition was filed by the original landlord Dattatraya Balwantrao, who died during the pendency of this petition. Original petitioner having died, his heirs and legal representatives are brought on record and they are pursuing this petition. I have specially mentioned this fact as it has a lot of bearing on the merits of the case as they stand today.3. Original landlord Dattatraya Balwantrao filed an application in the trial Court under section 44 read with section 32(2) of the Hyd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›