Mumbai Court March 1983 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.
Navinchandra Ratilal Thakkar Vs. Girdharilal H. Valia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR39
D.M. Rege, J.1. This writ petition challenges the validity of the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes dated 22-4-1982 in Appeal No. 315 E/79, allowing the first respondent's appeal and reversing the finding of the trial Court dated 5th April, 1979 on the preliminary issue raised in respondent No. 2's application being Ejectment Application No. 23/119/1971 against respondent No. 1 for ejectment and possession viz. whether first respondent proved that he was a tenant of the suit premises.2. Few facts, necessary to dispose of this writ petition, are as under :---The petitioner herein is at present the owner of a building called Jalaram Nivas in which the suit premises being block No. 9 on the second floor are situate. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be a tenant in respect of the said premises. Petitioner purchased the said building from respondent No. 2 some time in 1975. Since 1968 respondent No. 1 was admittedly in possession of the suit premises. Accordin...
The Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC179(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The applicants are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The applicants carry on the business of manufacture and sale of biscuits both within the State of Maharashtra as also outside. The applicants charge a lump sum price for the sale of biscuits outside the City of Bombay and suburbs, which includes the cost of tins in which the biscuits are supplied. In the City of Bombay and its suburbs, however, the applicants sell biscuits in returnable containers. The applicants take a refundable deposit in respect of the tins in which the biscuits are supplied. On the return of the tins the deposit is refunded to the purchaser. These tins are shown in the books of account of the applicants as part of their stock along with their stock of tins actually lying with the applicants. The deposits are credited to 'Deposit Account Returnable Tins' account and a corresponding debit is made to the customer's...
Vishwanath Ramchandra SaThe Vs. Madhukar Hari Tanksala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR171
D.M. Rege, J.1. This is a writ petition by the original plaintiff challenging the validity of the judgment and order of the Extra Assistant Judge, Thane, dated 15th July, 1980 in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1979 dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and allowing the cross-objections of the defendant against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, J.D., Kalyan dated 20-11-1978, dismissing the plaintiff's suit only on the ground of want of notice while holding other findings in favour of the plaintiff. It also challenges the validity of the judgment and order dated 5th March, 1981 of the II Extra Assistant Judge, Thane, dismissing the appeal by the plaintiff after it was revived only on the ground that along with the appeal cross objections of the defendant which were allowed ex parte were also not revived.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as under :The respondent-defendant was a tenant of a Room No. 12 in a building belonging to the petitioner-plaintiff at Dombivali c...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Anant Walavalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR390
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Thane in favour of the respondent who was the plaintiff in the trial Court partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit to the extent of Rs. 50,000 with interest thereon. The original plaintiff has filed cross-objections against that part of the decree which denied to the plaintiff a part of the suit claim.2. It will be convenient stating the facts of the case in chronological order. Most of the facts are admitted, at least, at this appeal stage whenever there is some dispute relating to the facts we might give indication about that position.(a) The plaintiff is a Forest Contractor and quite an experienced Forest Contractor for the matter of that. The contract in question relates to the felling of trees and their removal from the forest coupe in question. There was a project of granting permission for settlement in certain villages in district Thane and for that p...
Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani Vs. Sajni Prem Lalwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom268; 1984(1)BomCR211; (1983)85BOMLR113
ORDER1 to 12. (Are not relevant for this report.)13. Coming to the aspect of limitation, Mr. Dalapatrai urged that by virtue of the residuary Art. 37 of the Limitation Act, the petition is barred by limitation as it was not filed within 3 years from the date of the deceased's death on 3rd Jan., 1974. which according to Mr. Dalapatrai was that starting point when the petitioner's right to apply accrued.14. This contention is fallacious. The Schedule to the Limitation Act is divided into three divisions. The Third Division pertains to application and consists of two parts, the first part being 'APPLICATIONS IN SPECIFIED CASES' and the second part being 'OTHER APPLICATIONS' under which Art. 137 falls. It reads thus :--'137. Any other application Three years When the right to applyfor which no period of accrues.'limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division.The basic question that arises is whether the 3-year period must be computed from the date of the deceased's death as urged by Mr....
Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Hazarat Khawaja Shaikh SallaluddIn Chis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR33
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a question as to the interpretation of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner is the Pune Municipal Corporation while the respondents are the owners of a property, part of which has been acquired by the Municipal Corporation under circumstances mentioned in section 213 of the Act. Section 213 of the Act provides that the Municipal Commissioner may, after giving to the owner of the land or building not less than seven clear days' written notice of his intention to do so, take possession, on behalf of the Corporation of the said land with its enclosing wall, hedge or fence, if any, if such land is within the regular line of a public street. This is broadly called the process of straightening the contours of a road in a city. Provision has been made for payment of compensation under section 216 of the Act for any loss which is thus suffered ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›