Mumbai Court August 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Laljee Brothers and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR20
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay in an interim notice No. 3324 of 1983 in R.A.E. Declaratory Suit No. 1270/4483 of 1973, on 1st June, 1983, granting plaintiffs' application in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c), or para 30, thereof namely allowing the plaintiffs to implead the Union of India and Shri Mistry as party defendants to the suit, granting amendment of the plaint and ad interim injunction restraining the Union of India and K.K. Mistry from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit premises.2. It appears from the record that the plaintiffs filed a suit initially against one Shri Saxena, Executor of the Will to late Shrimati Meenakumari. In the said suit, it was the case of the plaintiffs, M/s. Laljee Brothers a registered firm, that they were placed in possession of the suit premises on 16th October, 1972, as licensee. They were in possession of the premises lawfull...
Venkatrao Satappa and ors. Vs. Mari Jakya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR31
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. This is one of the few cases which disclose the utter negligence on the part of the concerned persons in the office of Tahsildar and that is why the respondent No. 1 was required again to move the Tahsildar's office for giving a relief and it arises out of the following facts :---The petitioners before me are the legal heirs and representatives of original landholder. One Jakya, the husband of the present respondent No. 1 was a tenant of Survey No. 2 admeasuring 9 acres and 6 gunthas and Survey No. 41 admeasuring 13 acres and 29 gunthas. Respondent No. 2 Govinda was a tenant of the original landholder in respect of Survey No. 209. Satappa was the original owner. A final declaration under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was made in favour of Jakya for the entire land admeasuring 22 acres and 35 gunthas. Sattappa filed his objection-petition on 7th April, 1959. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal allowed the objection-petition and final d...
Retd. Lt. Col. Bhimrao Raghunath Karandikar Vs. Advocate Madhukar Yesh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR558
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner, retired Lt. Col. Bhimrao Raghunath Karandikar, a resident of Pune, filed the present petition under section 482, of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing a complaint in Criminal Case No. 324 of 1982 pending disposal in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Anti-Corruption), Pune. Respondent No. 1 is a practising Advocate Madhukar Yeshwant Joshi of Pune. He is the complainant in the said Criminal Case No. 324 of 1982. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were impleaded as parties on an application made for and on behalf of the petitioner. It will be proper for convenience's sake to describe their status and involvement in this matter at this stage. Respondent No. 3 is an Advocate Rustom Bhagalia, normally practising at Bombay. He represented respondent No. 5 Vinay Karandikar, son of the petitioner, in Criminal Application No. 1087 of 1980, in this Co...
Tapti Oil Industries and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC193(Bom)
Chandurkar, AG. C.J.1. These two petitions, in each of which petitioner No. 1 is a partnership-firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner, raise a question as to whether the petitioners can claim a right to issue of an eligibility certificate under a scheme framed by the State Government under which several incentives were promised to small-scale, medium and large industries with a view to speed up the pace of industrialisation of the developing industries in the State. The petition was required to be heard by the Full Bench because on the construction of the said scheme a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad held that even though the required steps under the scheme are completed, an industry is not entitled to enforce any right for the issue of an eligibility certificate under the scheme under article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A scheme of incentives comprising mainly incentives in the nature of refund of sales tax, relief in electricity duty, octroi duty, etc., has been in...
Tapti Oil Industries and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom161; (1984)86BOMLR67; 1984(2)ECC307; 1984MhLJ321
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. These two petitions, in each of whi(AIR 1968 SC 718)ch petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No.2 is a partber, raise a question as to whether the petitioners can claim a right to issue of an eligibility certificate under a scheme framed by the State Government under which several incentives were promised to small scale, medium and large industries with a view to speed up the pace of industrialisation of the developing industries in the State. The petition was required to be heard by the Full Bench because on the construction of the said schemes Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad held that even though the required steps under the scheme are completed, an industry is not entitled to enforce any right for the issue of an eligibility certificate under the scheme under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Inida.2. A scheme of incentives comprising mainly incentives in the nature of refund of sales tax, relief in electricity duty, octroi duty etc....
Bhaurao S/O Vithal and ors. Vs. Godawaribai W/O Madhukarrao Giri and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR103
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. Godawaribai, present respondent No. 1 before me filed a petition under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter it is referred to as 'Tenancy Act'), for obtaining possession of the disputed lands from the present petitioners who were respondents before the Deputy Collector. She admitted in para 4 of her petition that Vithal, father of the present petitioners 1 and 2 and the husband of present petitioner No. 3, was given these lands on Batai basis in the year 1960. It is never mentioned by her in this petition that Vithal was her partner in cultivation in respect of these lands. She further alleged that later on an agreement of sale was entered into between her and Vithal. She alleged that permission for such sale was not obtained. She further alleged that Vithal had not paid the full consideration also and had not taken a registered sale-deed also from her. She, therefore, prayed that possession should be handed over to her under ...
Manoel Francisco Agremiro Da Conceicao Fernandes and Etc. Vs. Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom461; 1984MhLJ144
Ginwala, J.1. these two writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment since they raise a common question about the validity f o the Daman (Abolition of ....................... Regulation, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation') and the orders passed by the collector of Daman under it.2. In order to appreciated properly the various contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners,s it would be convenient at the outset to take not of the legislative and judicial history of the regulation and its salient features. The territories which immediately before 20-12-1961 were declared as Union territory by including there in Part 11 of the First Sch of the Constitution by the Constitution (`` Amendment) Act, 1962, By the said Amending Act this Union Territory was included in cl. (1) of Art 240 of the Countitution, thus enabling the president of India to make regulations for its peace. Progress and good government In exercise of the powers so cinferred on him by the ...
Atmaram Marya Bhoir and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom71
ORDER1. The petitioners except petitioners Nos. 11, 12 and 16, are the owners of lands situated at Mulund, BOmbay. By notification dt. 5th Aug. 1965 issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the lands were notified for acquisition. The lands had been agreed to be sold inter alia to the 11th petitioner, a co-operative housing society. Representations were made on behalf of the owners and the co-operative society for release of the land it had agreed to purchase from acquisition. On 29th May, 1980 the Deputy Secretary to the Stat of Maharashtra, the 1st respondent, informed the chief promoter of the cooperative society that the Government had decided to release from acquisition the land in favour of the co-operative society and further action was being taken by the Commissioner. The latter requested submission by the owners of an undertaking in writing stating that they would claim no damages on account of withdrawal of the land from acquisition. This undertaking was furnished. On 26...
Prabhakar Narhar Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom122; 1984(1)BomCR180; (1983)86BOMLR82; 1984MhLJ63
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings for declaration of surplus vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Admittedly, C.T.S. Nos. 977/B and 1257 originally belonged to one Narhar Pawar, who died sometime in 1960 leaving behind him his widow, two major sons, one widowed daughter-in-law, two married daughters and one unmarried daughter.2. Before the Competent Authority it was the contention of the petitioners that the property left behind by Pawar was coparcenary property and that the seven heirs left by him should be treated as coparceners and for the purpose of proceedings under the Act, one-seventh share in the total land in question should be taken into account. IN addition, it was contented that the petitioners had submitted a layout to the Pune Municipal Corporation on 2nd July 1975 and that layout was liable to be taken into consideration for ascertaining whether contended that the petiti...
Smt. Swaran Kantilal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR48; 1983MhLJ893
Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners challenge the continued requisition of flat No. 8 on the second floor of a building formerly known as Gupta Mahal, now known as Pankaj Mahal, situate at Churchgate Reclamation, Bombay 400020. The petitioners are the owners of the building.2. On April 4, 1977 the flat was requisitioned for the purposes of housing a State Government servant. On April 5, 1977 it was de-requisitioned. On April 6, 1977 it was re-requisitioned for the purposes of housing a Central Government servant. It was occupied by a Central Government servant between April 7, 1977 and January 13, 1979. It lay vacant between January 13, 1979 and July 26, 1979. On July 27, 1979 the flat was allotted to the Accountant General of Maharashtra, the 4th respondent, for the accommodation of one of his officers. It was then allotted to the 5th respondent. It is the petitioners' case that the 5th respondent inducted one Vishnu Mathur into the flat and did not use it himself. On October 24, 1979 the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »