Mumbai Court October 1984 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.
Vinayak Krushna Kale Vs. Janardan Krushna Kale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR207; (1984)86BOMLR622; 1985MhLJ72
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. In these two matters it came to my notice that the appearance filed on behalf of the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3589 of 1984 and on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Application No. 5444 of 1984 contained an endorsement that the responsibility of getting information about the different dates in the matter is on the client and subject to this condition alone the Vakalatnama has been filed. I passed an order on 10th October 1984 directing that I should hear the Advocates and the Bar Council on this.2. Today Mr. Page, the learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the Bar Council. I heard Miss Mutalik, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3589 of 1984 and the petitioner in Civil Application No. 5444 of 1984.3. Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the High Court to make rules laying down the condition subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. Ac...
Ajit and ors. Vs. General Manager, Best Undertaking of the Municipal C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom362; 1985MhLJ527
1. A short but important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether before ordering eviction of a allottee of the Municipal premises under sub-sec. (1) of S. 105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act it is incumbent on the Municipal Commissioner to issue a notice in writing to all persons residing with the said allottee.2. The appellants are sons and daughters of Respondent 3, who being an employee of the 1st Respondent Undertaking was allotted Flat No. N/25 from the BEST staff quarters at Parel, Bombay. Respondent 3 was made to retire from service with effect from 8th February 1983 and he was served with a show cause notice by respondent 2 calling upon him to vacate the premises allotted to him, on the ground that after his services were terminated, his occupation of the said premises became unauthorised. This notice was issued by respondent 2 as the Competent Authority to whom the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking delegated the powers conferred on him b...
Vinod Kumar Gosalia and ors. Vs. Frank Silva Lobo Norton and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: (1987)2BOMLR613
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the tenants directed against the Order of the Single Judge dated 22nd November, 1983 confirming the Orders of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal by virtue of which the tenants are to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.2. The sole contention raised in this appeal is that the tenants having complied with the requirement of section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 no order could be made by the Controller stopping the proceedings and directing them to hand over the premises. In other words, the question raised is that in an eviction proceeding against the tenant to enable him to contest the same the deposit of the arrears of rent ought to be confined to the rents that are legally recoverable or he is required to deposit the entire arrears of rent due.3. In this appeal facts are few and we can conveniently refer to them as there ...
Heritage Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD519(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal on various grounds mainly relating to the assess ability of compensation received from the Maharashtra Government in February 1979 in respect of 181 acres of land at Oshiwara near Jogeshwari, compensation received from the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a piece of land at Parel and balance of sale proceeds received from Oshiwara Land Development Corporation (P.) Ltd. in respect of 542 acres of land, as business income.2. At the time of hearing on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 28-6-1984, the counsel for the assessee had sought leave to take some additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment. The grounds being purely legal were admitted. There are as many as eight additional grounds. For the sake of convenience, we will take up the additional grounds first. The counsel for the assessee has grouped the additional grounds into four effective grounds. It is contended that : (i) the order of the assessment made by the ITO under Section...
Hirabhai Bhikanrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ469Bom; 1985MhLJ73
Masodkar, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of one Bhikanrao Deshmukh, since deceased, while petitioner No. 2 is the son. Bhikanrao Deshmukh was the civil servant having been appointed as a Talathi in the year 1956. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension on 10th March, 1969. Proceedings could not be completed and he expired before the age of the retirement while in service and under suspension, on 10th September, 1978.2. By the impugned order made on 2nd February, 1984, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon has held, upon the application presumably made by the petitioners, that since no orders were made in the disciplinary proceedings said deceased Talathi is presumed to have been found guilty and further is presumed to have been dismissed at the time of his death. On that basis, his period of suspension was treated and the prayer of the petitioners duly made by the application for salary of the deceased and all other benefits arising out...
Kishor Chunilal Shah and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR1; 1984MhLJ1031
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. A three wheeler meant for earning income landed both the parties in difficulties. The two accused are being placed in the dock while the complainant, who is required to part with additional amount as also required almost to purchase litigation along with it. The petitioners herein are brothers, who are alleged to have indulged in venture in booking orders for registering scooters and three wheelers with Bajaj Auto Company under pseudo names with a modus operandi to get the vehicles under those different names and to sell those earning some profits by which, as per the prosecution, some documents came to be forged while they indulged in breach of impugned order under which there was prohibition from transferring the vehicles for a period of two years. One such three wheeler was booked by the petitioners in the name of Pravinchandra Natoria in the year 1967 with the said company. The complainant, who lost his service decided to autorickshaw plying and as such was on the...
Shravan Nathu Kannor Vs. Anjanabai Shravan Kannor and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR495
ORDER1. This is a husband's petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, passed under S. 125 Cr.P.C. in revision, directing him to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 50/- to the respondent 1 who is his wife.2. Most of the facts are no longer in dispute. The parties married each other around 1967, when the wife was still a minor, The wife came to reside with the husband about the year 1974. As they could not pull on well together she went back to her parents. There was some litigation between the parties, which was amicably settled. Thereafter the wife again joined the husband under the marital roof. However, after 8 or 10 days' stay with him she again went back to her parents. Thereafter in July 1977 the wife preferred an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, under S. 125 Cr.P.C. for fixation of maintenance. Apart from the plea of refusal and neglect to maintain her, the wife also allege...
Shravan Nathu Kannor Vs. Anjanabai Shravan Kannor and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1213; 1984MhLJ1015
ORDERKhatri, J.1. This is a husband's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, passed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in revision, directing him to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 50A to the respondent 1 who is his wife.2. Most of the facts are no longer in dispute. The parties married each other around 1967, when the wife was still a minor. The wife came to reside with the husband about the year 1974. As they could not pull on well together she went back to her parents. There was some litigation between the parties, which was amicably settled. Thereafter the wife again joined the husband under the marital roof. However, after 8 or 10 days' stay with him she again went back to her parents. Thereafter in July 1977 the wife preferred an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for fixation of maintenance. Apart from the plea of refusal and neglect to maintain h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. John Fowler (i) Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: [1988]171ITR150(Bom)
Desai, J.1. These three references can be disposed of by a common order. Two of these are against the respondents who are limited companies, whilst in the third, the respondent is a person belonging to the Mafatlal family.2. These three references reveal a very sorry state of affairs and gross negligence on the part of the respective Commissioners at whose instance the Tribunal made reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In each of the matters, the Tribunal has forwarded to the High Court only the statement of case with a covering letter that the applicant, namely, the respective Commissioner, has failed to supply the required annexures. Thus, in these matters, right from the inception, the Department has been a defaulter. In Lodging No. 109, the statement of case was received by the office on April 5, 1980. Nothing has been done by the Department thereafter to supply the annexures. No other step has been taken to bring the reference to a hearing. In Lodging No. 20...
Ganpat Bapu Sawant Vs. Balkrishna Atmaram Shirsat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR334; 1985MhLJ84
S.J. Deshpande, J. 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in a suit instituted by him in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sawantwadi, being Suit No. 51 of 1981. The suit was filed on 29th April, 1981 against 21 defendants. Original defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are brothers and other defendants Nos. 5 to 21 are co-sharers in the plain property. The suit relates to different pieces of lands mentioned in Schedule A and Schedule B attached to the plaint and some other properties fallen to the share of the defendants. It is alleged that defendants No. 1 executed an agreement of sale on 20th October, 1979 in favour of the plaintiff. The said agreement relates to property in Schedule A. The agreement is on a simple paper. It is not stamped or registered. In para 2-A of the agreement it is stated that in the properties mentioned in para 1 there was some suit between the co-shares and one Mukund Vedave Suit No. 39 of 1967. In that suit, Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1969 was filed and on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »