Mumbai Court January 1985 Judgments
Arun Sanghai and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom236
ORDER1. The judgments in this writ petition and some other writ petitions were kept reserved to await the decision of the Division Bench of this Court on a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court (Padhye J. as he then was) in Special Civil Application No. 1514 of 1977 in regard to the ration of the decision of another learned single Judge of this Court (V. S. Deshpande, J. as he then was) in Narayanibai v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 MahLJ 865. The Decision Bench has now answered the reference in the above special civil application by its judgment dt. 17-9-1984. I am, therefore, deferring the judgment in this case in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.2. In this petition, the sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is about the applicability of section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (for short the Ceiling Act) in respect of transfers of lands made prior to 20-9-19756 by a memb...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmalabai and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom260
ORDER1. The judgments in this writ petition and some other writ petitions were kept reserved to await the decision of the Division Bench of this Court on a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court (Padhye, J. as then was) in Special Civil Appln. No. 1514 of 1977) in regard to the ration of the decision of another learned single judge of this Court (V.S. Deshpande, J. as he then was) in Narayanibai v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 Mah LJ 865. The Division Bench has now answered the reference in the above special civil application by its judgment dated 17-9-1984. I am, therefore, delivering the judgment in this case in the light of the aforesaid judgment to which I will refer while considering the ration of the decision in Narayanibai case upon which heavy reliance is placed in this petition on behalf of the petitioners.2. In this writ petition, the petitioners impugn the orders under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961 ( for short 'Ceiling Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvichand Ramchand Sablok Vs. S.Y. Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom297; 1985(2)BomCR200; (1985)87BOMLR111; 1985MhLJ199
ORDER1. This petition raises an important question of law regarding the interpretation of consent terms filed in a suit instituted under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act'). The law relating to the nature of the consent terms is fairly well-settled as I will show a little later in this judgment. Nevertheless, some variations do arise from time and this petition provides one of such variations which has to be dealt with in the light of the well-settled law.2. The petitioner filed suit, being Regular Suit No. 419 of 1968, against the respondent for possession of certain premises which were tenanted by the respondent. The ground urged in support of the prayer for possession was among others, that the respondent had committed default in the payment of arrears of rent, thus meriting a decree for eviction under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.3. On 8th July 1970 a decree in terms of the com...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Vastra Bhandar and ors. Vs. Satyapal S/O Shobraj Khatri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR553; 1985MhLJ466
V.A. Motha, J.1. Can the co-owners be simultaneously 'landlord' and 'tenant' under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('The H.R.C. Order')? Can appellate authority pass order of remand? These are some of the issues raised in this petition.2. The petitioners and respondent are co-owners of a shop bearing No. 55 in the Wholesale Cloth Market, Gandhibagh, Nagpur. Each of them has undivided 1/2 share. The petitioners took 1/2 undivided share on monthly rent and are in occupation of the whole shop. The respondent filed an application under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the H.R.C. Order for permission to terminate the tenancy. This application was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that it was not maintainable as there could be no relationship of landlord-tenant in respect of unspecified share between Co-Owners. The Controller upheld this objection and summarily dismissed the application on that short ground. Being aggrieved by the said Order (Annexure A), an a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Morarji Goculdas Spg. Wvg. Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT13(Bom)
ORDER1. Called Appeal for admission.2. Heard Counsel.3. P. C. The averments made in para 4 of the petition show that the blending of the different types of fabrics is done in the respondent company in what is known as the 'Blow Room'. The further averments show that thereafter the mixed fabrics undergo various processes and finally emerge from what are known as ring frames. At this stage, the commodity becomes fully manufactured yarn and is an excisable and commercial commodity. If such yarn is made for sale or for captive consumption for weaving, it is gathered on bobbins, cones, reels, etc. If it is to be sold, it could be sold in that stage and if it is to be used for weaving, it is wound on beams and then sized. These averments remain uncontroverted because there is no affidavit in reply, although the petition was heard three years after it was filed. These averments, in our view, clearly show that the commodity in question became complete yarn before it was sized and that sizing w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Shriraman Govindarao Narayanrao Ghorpade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom336; 1985(2)BomCR94; (1985)87BOMLR101
Gangil, J.1. This matter was initially heard by the Division Bench consisting of Waikar and Vaze, JJ., and by their order dt. Sept. 15, 1983, certain questions have been referred to the Full Bench. Though the questions have not been formulated in the referring judgment, we have, at the time of the hearing of this reference, formulated those questions. We will enumerate them in the latter part of this judgment.2. Before considering the controversy it would be necessary to mention a few facts. Two acres and 25 gunthas from survey No. 610, situated at Ichalkaranji were acquired for public purpose viz. Burial ground. This land was originally a jagir land. The said jagir along with other miscellaneous inams and watans were abolished under the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the '1955-Act'). The scheme of the Act is to abolish all alienations or watans. Section 7 provides that the land under a watan stands resumed and that i...
Tag this Judgment!CaptaIn Madhav Pralhad Joglekar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR321; 1985MhLJ954
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner Captain Joglekar was serving as a pilot with the Indian Airlines Corporation (respondent No. 2). He achieved the rank of the Commander during the course of his service and was declared to be medically unit for flying since 4th October, 1971. Having contacted diabetes he lost his licence to fly the aircrafts and never got it back from the Director General of Civil Aviation. He did not report on duty, his leave upto 290 days was adjusted and he ceased to be in the service since 21st July, 1972. He was a member of registered trade union of the Commercial Pilots Indian Commercial Pilot's Association (respondent No. 3). As a result of the agreement dated 31-10-1963, between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 on many points including rehabilitation of the pilots declared medically unfit, he was entitled for an annuity at certain rates until the attainment of the age of 55. The basis of this annuity changed from time to time by mutual agreement. He started r...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram S/O. Narayan Vyawahare Vs. Chief Executive Officer Zilla Paris ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR519
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. These two cross-appeals, First Appeal No. 14-A of 1982 by Sitaram the father of the deceased Rama who died in the accident dated March 1, 1977, and by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded arise out of the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, awarding Rs. 13,500/- as compensation to Sitaram, upon the death of his son Rama.2. Rama Sitaram Vyawahare was in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Nanded on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. On March 1, 1977, while he was travelling in truck No. MHB 4420 belonging to the Zilla Parishad, which was engaged for transporting sand from Ardhapur to Limbgaon for the construction of a road by the Zilla Parishad, the truck while negotiating a turn met with an accident in which Rama and another labourer were severely injured. They were rushed to the Government hospital at Nanded, but they both succumbed to the injuries on admission. Sitaram could not bear t...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC80
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. These two cross-appeals, First Appeal No. 14-A of 1982 by Sitaram the father of the deceased Rama who died In the accident dated March 1, 1977, and by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded arise out of the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, awarding Rs. 13,500/- as compensation to Sitaram, upon the death of his son Rama.2. Rama Sitaram Vyawahare was in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Nanded on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. On March 1,1977, while he was traveling in truck No. MHB 4420 belonging to the Zilla Parishad, which was engaged for transporting sand from Ardhapur to Limbgaon for the construction of a road by the Zilla Parishad, the truck while negotiating a turn met with an accident in which Rama and another labourer were severally injured. They were rushed to the Government hospital at Nanded, but they both succumbed to the injuries on admission. Sitaram could not bear th...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC227
Deshpande, J.1. These two cross-appeals, First Appeal No. 14-Aof 1982 by Sitaram the father of the deceased Rama who died in the accident dated March 1,1977, and by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla parishad, Nanded, arise out of the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Ex-Officer, Commissioner for 'orkmen's Compensation, awarding Rs.13,500/- as compensation to Sitaram, upon the death of his son Rama.2. Rama Sitaram Vyawahare, was in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Nanded on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. On March 1, 1977, while he was travelling in truck No. MHB-4420 belonging to the Zilla Parishad, which was engaged for transporting sand from Ardhapur to Limbgaon for the construction of a road by the Zilla Parishad, the truck while negotiating a turn met with an accident in which Rama and Anr. labourer were severely injured. They were rushed to the Government hospital at Nanded, but they both succumbed to the injuries on admission. Sitaram could not bear the shock...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »