Mumbai Court April 1985 Judgments
Awabai Muncharji Cama and ors. Vs. M.N. Kaka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR338
S.K. Desai, J.1. The writ petitioners are the owners of a property called Nesbit Hall situated at Nesbit Road, Mazgaon, Bombay. The respondent is a tenant inducted in September 1960 under an express agreement of lease. In 1966 the landlords filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 105/1002 of 1966 claiming from the tenant (respondent before me) possession of the suit premises on several grounds as stated in the plaint. These grounds are summarised in para 8 of the plaint. I will only indicate the four grounds urged before me in the Writ Petition since the landlords who succeeded in the trial Court failed in the appeal.2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowing the tenant's appeal, the landlords (original trustees) have filed the writ petition.3. The grounds on which eviction of the tenant was sought and the possession of the premises claimed are as under :---(a) That the tenant had committed breaches of the terms and conditions of tenancy.(b) That the tena...
Tag this Judgment!Vanessa Fernandes Vs. Francisco Fernandes and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom89; 1985MhLJ788
Couto, J.1. Whether a suit instituted for a declaration that the plaintiff is not the father of a minor child, born to his legally wedded wife whilst the marriage is subsisting, can validly be proceeded with and decreed against a minor if, on the refusal of the appointed guardian ad litem to accept the appointment and to act on behalf of such child, the Court fails to make a fresh appointment, is the main question that this Letters Patent Appeal gives rise to. Appellant answered this question in the negative, whilst the first respondent held that opposite view. The learned single Judge of this Court (Kamat, J.), while disposing the appeal filed by the present second respondent against the judgment dt.24th January, 1979, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, decreed the suit, upheld the view of the first respondent. Hence, this appeal.2. A few facts may, as necessary for the proper understanding of the case, be stated. Respondents herein got married at Bombay, their ...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR572; 1985(22)ELT714(Bom); 1986MhLJ554
1. The petitioners carry on business, inter alia, of manufacturing dye-stuffs and dye-intermediates. In the manufacture of dye-stuffs and dye-intermediates one of the raw materials used is a product known as 'Naphthalene'. The main commercial source of supply of Naphthalene is coal-tar. According to the petitioners although it is technically possible to obtain Naphthalene from petroleum products 90% of the supply of Naphthalene comes from coal-tar. The petitioners under invoice dated 23rd December, 1977 imported 500 metric tonnes of Naphthalene from German manufacturers. The said goods arrived from Germany. Thereafter the petitioners filed their bill of entry dated 13th February 1978. The petitioners had produced three certificates dated 14-11-1977, 18-1-1978 and 23-1-1978 from their German suppliers to the effect that Naphthalene which was supplied by them and which was imported by the petitioners was exclusively produced from crude coal-tar. The certificates also stated that there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Pran Jivan Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR282; (1985)87BOMLR255; 1985MhLJ446; [1986]61STC309(Bom)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, dated 20th December, 1983, dismissing the applications filed by him raising certain preliminary objections.2. It appears from the record that criminal proceedings are instituted against the petitioner after obtaining sanction from the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (A), Enforcement, Bombay City Division, under section 63(2)(i), 63(4) and 63(8)(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended by the Maharashtra Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981. It appears to be an admitted position that a show cause notice dated 6th May, 1982, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed under section 36 of the said Act. Prior to this a complaint was made to the police on 23rd April, 1982, about the offences committed by the petitioner.3. According to Mr. Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Taori Vs. Nagpur University, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom255; 1986(2)BomCR567
V.A. Mohta, J.1. As common questions of law relating to (i) validity of R. 4 of Ordinance No. 159 'prescribing rules for revaluation of answer books of examinees at University Examinations' framed under S. 40 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (the NU Act) (ii) interpretation of the Ordinance, are involved in these two petitions they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Writ Petitioner Lalit Taori (Writ Petition No. 536 of 1985) appeared for the Final M.B.B.S. Examination of Winter 1984 held by the Nagpur University and was declared successful. In the subject Medicine (Paper I), he was awarded 49 out of 100 marks. He was not satisfied with the valuation of this paper as the marks were not as per his reasonable expectation. He, therefore, on 17th Dec. 1984, applied for revaluation of this paper as provided for in the Ordinance No. 159. University informed the petitioner some time in Mar. 1985 that as a result of revaluation, there was averse change in the...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar Vinayak Joshi Vs. Sulabha Sudhakar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR496
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is in continuation of my earlier order dated April 11, 1985 which was passed, more or less, by consent. By this judgment, reasons are being briefly stated in connection with the said order.2. This appeal arises out of the petition filed by the present appellant (hereafter, the petitioner) against his wife, respondent No. 1, for divorce on the ground of-(a) desertion for a continuous period exceeding 2 years;(b) cruelty; and(c) adultery with respondent No. 2.3. The respondent/wife denied all the three Allegations. She also contended that if there was any cruelty in the eyes of law practised by her or if she was held to be guilty of adultery as alleged, both the lapses had been condoned by the petitioner / husband.4. On these pleas, issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties and after examination of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner/husband has failed to prove all the three lapses, viz. desertion, cruelty and ad...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrishna Subhana Horambale and ors. Vs. Shripad Jiwaji Apate and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom86; (1987)89BOMLR12
ORDER1. An interesting question of law - formulated below - under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter the Tenancy Act) arises for determination in this writ petition.2. One Jiwaji was the original landlord of the suit land and the petitioners his tenants. The suit land as also the relationship between the parties was at all relevant times governed by the Tenancy Act. As , on the Tiller's Day 1st April 1957, the petitioners were in personal cultivation of the suit land, proceedings were held under S.32G of the Tenancy Act for fixation of purchase price. The tenants expressed willingness to purchase. However, as the landlord was a physically disabled person, the proceedings were dropped because under S. 32F(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, in the case inter alia of a landlord subject to physical disability the tenants' right of purchase stood postponed. This was in June 1959. Subsequently in February 1962, proceedings under S. 32G were again held but despite tenants' will...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Limited Vs. M.K. Chipkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC385; 1987(10)LC531(Bombay); 1985(22)ELT334(Bom)
1. This appeal is directed against the decision dated April 6, 1977, of the learned Single Judge (Rege J.) dismissing the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming a refund of excess excise duty paid under a mistake of law. This appeal was heard by the Division Bench consisting of Lentin and Sawant JJ. On a difference of opinion expressed by their separate judgments the matter has been placed before me.2. The facts leading to this appeal which are not in dispute are these. The appellants - I.T.C. Limited formerly known as India Tobacco Co. Ltd., manufacture and sell cigarettes and tobacco products. They sell their products to the wholesale buyers who in turn sell the same to the secondary wholesalers of their choice. The secondary wholesalers in turn sell the said products to the retailers who ultimately sell them to the consumers. Between 1st September 1970 and 6th October 1972 I.T.C. effected sales of cigarettes bonafide in usual course of business at arms length ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Ramniklal Hirji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom399; (1985)87BOMLR242; 1985MhLJ429
ORDER1. In all these matters the trial Court while decreeing the suits inter alia for possession, unconditionally granted to the defendants time of more than six years to vacate the suit premises. It is against this granting of such an inordinately long time to vacate that the plaintiffs have preferred these writ petitions.2. Now, though it would normally be in the discretion of the Court to grant reasonable time to vacate, grant of time of years and years together, as done here, can by no stretch be a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Indeed, it would be, and here it pre-eminently is, an arbitrary exercise of discretion and one which tends to defeat the ends of justice.3. The grant of such inordinately long time in the instant matters is, I understand at the Bar, frequently set up as precedent in a number of subsequent matters before the trial Court. If that is so, it is most unfortunate and the earliest that is stopped, the better. By way of a general guideline, it may be obser...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Ganpat Pawar Vs. Govind Narayan Kondalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR637
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The remand order which is impugned in this petition deserves to be set aside because it is passed after wrongly throwing burden on the respondent, who had taken out an obstructionist notice against the petitioner in execution of the decree passed against the erstwhile tenant, to establish that the room of which possession is sought in execution of the decree is not declared as a slum area.2. The petitioner landlord obtained a decree of eviction against the original tenant in respect of Room No. 3, Rajaram Ganpat Pawar Chawl, Altaf Nagar, Golibar Road, Shivaji Chowk, Ghatkopar, Bombay. He took out execution by way of warrant of possession, but the same was obstructed by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, took out the obstructionist notice for removing obstruction and for executing the warrant of possession. The respondent obstructionist resisted the notice mainly on two grounds, viz. (1) that he was in use and occupation of the suit premises as a licensee since...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »