Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Pankaj Kumar P. Shah and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR352
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This revision application is filed by the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.S.F.C.') the original respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 61 of 1976 filed by to be present respondent No. 1, who was the original petitioner in this District Court at Nanded. Although it was stated in the petition initially that this was a petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was conceded in the trial Court subsequently that the claim of the original petitioner was not under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was also conceded that the said provision was not applicable to the facts of this case. Emphasis was laid in the trial Court at that time that the application was maintainable under section 32 of the Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') and this original petition arises out of the following facts.2. Respondent No. 2. in this revision application wa...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. R.D. Mehta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: (1984)7ITD591(Mum.)
1. The revenue has filed these appeals for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 on the ground that the AAC erred in holding that the assessee's beneficial interest as a remainderman in the following four trusts could not be included in the total wealth of the assessee : 2. Sheth Hargovindas Jiwandas Family Trust was created by Hargovindas Jiwandas by a deed dated 4-12-1924 which was modified by an agreement dated 6-5-1962. The income of the trust was settled for the benefit of Dharamdas and after his death the corpus was to belong to the assessee and his brother, Amresh Dharamdas, in equal parts.Bai Harkorebai Hargovindas Trust was created by Harkorebai Hargovindas by a deed dated 6-11-1931 as modified by a covenant dated 6-5-1962. The life interest belonged to Dharamdas (son of Harkorebai) and after his death the corpus would go to the assessee and his brother, Amresh Dharamdas, in equal parts.Shantabai Dharamdas Trust was created by Shantabai, wife of Dharanidas, on 7-4-1943. Sha...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Prakash Pandurang Mokashe Vs. State Bank of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ145Bom
Tulpule, J.1. The petitioner was an employee in the State Bank of India, branch at Wardha and was working as a clerk in the said branch. One Meshram was also an employee of the said bank and Meshram and the petitioner were occupying seats side by side at a table in the bank.2. Between 27th February, 1967 and 3rd March, 1967, it was discovered that a blank form of bank drafts which were being handled by Meshram was lost bearing No. J. 942980. The said bank draft found its way to the Katol Branch of State Bank of India and was encashed on the 3rd March, 1967. The draft was drawn in the name of one M. R. Joshi. The petitioner had taken leave on 2nd and 3rd March, 1967 from his office at Wardha. He extended that leave up to 4th March, 1967.3. The fact of the draft forms being missing was notified by the Bank authorities to its branches and on the 29th March, 1967, it was discovered that this bank draft was encashed at the Katol Branch. Enquiries were then made and suspicion gravitated towa...
Tag this Judgment!Sonappa Laxman Kondekar and ors. Vs. Vijaysinha Balwantrao Pawar and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom33; 1983(1)BomCR115
ORDER1. This is a writ Petition by the original tenant raising a point which was never raised in either of the Courts below evidently because there was no factual basis or justification for the same.2. The question arises out of the provision under S. 43-1B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter the Tenancy Act). Admittedly the lands in question (which shall be referred to hereafter as the `suit land') belonged to the joint family of which respondent No. 1 was a member. The present petitioner which will be referred to hereinafter as the Defendant' was a tenant of the suit land. There was some dispute in the lower Court as to whether a valid and effective partition has taken place in the joint family of the plaintiff and as to whether the suit land had come to his share or not. Both the Courts below have held that there was a valid and effective partition in the said joint family. The present petition is, therefore, argued on the assumption that there was a partit...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalal Saigal Vs. Sultana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR257
Sharad Manohar, J.1. It is impossible to find any substance in the present writ petition which arises out of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. The contention of the respondent was that the suit premises which consists of one room in a building at Narayan Dabholkar Road was given to the present petitioner on leave and licence basis just with a view to accommodate him temporarily and that too without any rent or compensation whatsoever. By a notice dated 29-1-1974, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the room in question and upon his refusal an application was filed by the landlord against the petitioner under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act for possession of the suit premises.2. Summons of the application was served upon the petitioner and he even filed his defence contending firstly that he had initially taken the room on leave and licence basis for paying a sum of Rs. 14,000/- which was to ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeo Raghunath Kulkarni Vs. Yashodabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom425; 1983(1)BomCR209
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction has been passed concurrently by both the courts below on identical grounds.2. The facts, though very few, are of quite a tell-tale character. For the sake of conveience, the parties will be referred to hereafter as the 'landlord' and 'tenant'(a) The suit premises consists of two rooms in a building called Sri Nivas' situated at 29, Prarthana samaj Road, vile parle (East), Bombay. They admeasured 369 sq. Ft. The premises were let out by the original landlord to the tenant about 40 years ago. The building in which the premises are situate is a ground plus one floor structure. The tenant had been paying Rs. 40/- per month as rent to the landlord. (B) In the year 1969, the tenant booked a flat admeasuring 450 sq. Ft. In a building being constructed by the 'Artchis co-operative Housing society', at mahant Road Extension, vile prle. The flat was booked by the tenant in the name of his son, who was admittedly...
Tag this Judgment!AmIn Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Sayed G. Jamalbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR481
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. A religious Masjid located in Hadapsar in Pune District has prominently figured in these proceedings. It has been registered with the Charity Commissioner, Pune Region under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (shortly stated as the 'Act'), in the name of 'Masjid Hadapsar, Taluka Haveli, Trust', which event occurred in the year 1952. The said Masjid shall be referred to as the suit 'Trust'. Initially 8 persons were appointed as trustees and managers to look after the said Mosque. The four appellants herein are amongst group of the said 8 trustees, though unfortunately the remaining four trustees died from time to time. Leaving behind in the field only the present appellants in that capacity and it may be incidently observed at this juncture itself that no attempt was made by them to fill up those vacancies. Thus, the number continued to be four, though it was necessary to be eight. The mode of succession to trusteeship and managership was prescribed by nomination by th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzanali Gulam HussaIn Adatia Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR559
V. Mohta, J.1. Ramzan Ali Gulam Hussain and one Barkya alias Ashok Parshram Patil were tried for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, on the charges that they had committed murder of Smt. Mangala alias Zarina wife of Ramzan Ali by stabbing and setting fire to her person after pouring petrol on her on 26-11-1980 on Alandi, Pune Road. Barkya was acquitted but Ramzan Ali (the appellant) was convicted under section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The present appeal is directed against the said order of conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution story can be stated thus :One Raghunath Bhalerao belonging to Christian community resides in Somwarpeth Pune. His family consisted of his wife, their four daughters including Mangala alias Zarina the deceased, Shalini (P.W. 7) and a son Ashok. Out of the four daughters, Meena and Rohini were married and were living with their husbands. Mangala alia...
Tag this Judgment!Sudam Bhau Kamble and ors. Vs. Devade Shripati More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR242
D.M. Rege, J.1. This second appeal is by the original defendants against the judgment and order of the Extra Assistant Judge, Satara, dated 4th January, 1974, allowing the plaintiff's appeal being Appeal No. 339 of 1971 against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vaduj, dated 5th September, 1971 and decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vaduj, by his said judgment and order had dismissed the plaintiff's suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 1969.2. Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration that he was the owner of a land bearing Survey No. 255 in Mouje Katarkhatav, Taluka Khatav, District Satara, under a sale deed dated 30th July, 1965 from the defendants for Rs. 5,000/- and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants were the original owners of the suit land and by a sale-deed dated 30-7-19...
Tag this Judgment!Yvonne Surendranath Sinha Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: 1991LC139(Bombay); 1993(64)ELT7(Bom)
ORDERKurdukar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the two petitioners challenging the action of the respondent No. 2 forfeiting the bond at Ex. A dated 1-12-1965.2. The petitioners are the present partners of the firm M/s. S.S.I. Films and are carrying on business at Agarwal Building, Room No. 14, 1st Floor, Kalina, Santa Cruz (East), Bombay 400 029. One Surendranath Sinha and one Irshad Ali both since the deceased were the partners of the said firm M/s. S.S.I. Films. Surendranath Sinha died in Bombay in or about the year 1971 and the petitioner No. 1 the widow was taken as the partner of the said firm along with Irshad Ali the other partner. Irshad Ali also died in Bombay on or about 16-1-1978 and thereafter petitioner No. 2 was taken as the partner in the said firm of M/s. S.S.I. Films along with the petitioner No. 1.3. Surendranath Sinha and Irshad Ali started the production of Motion Pictures in the name and style of S. S. I. Films. They d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »