Mumbai Court April 1985 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 Ramchandra Sakhalkar and Etc. Etc. Vs. D. Ramchandran, Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1257
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these writ petitions the detenus were detained by the Commissioner of Police, Thane in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Together with the orders of detention, grounds of detention and the copies of the documents referred to and relied upon were also supplied to the detenus. It is these orders of detention and the continued detention of the detenus which are challenged in these writ petitions.2. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the various averments made in the petitions or in the affidavits in reply, since the Counsel for the Petitioners has mainly argued before us only the questions of law which are common to all these writ petitions.3. Shri Kotw...
Harilal Ramji Doshi Vs. Manilal Sunderji Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR707
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Harilal Ramji Doshi took out a Summons for Judgment on January 23, 1979 in Summary Suit No. 1340 of 1978 filed by him on the basis of a deed of retirement dated September 23, 1975. The plaintiff Harilal had alleged that he, the defendants and one Nyalchand Mulji Doshi were carrying on business in partnership under a deed of partnership dated June 17, 1965. Certain disputes and differences arose between the partners which having been resolved they agreed that the plaintiff should be deemed to have retired from the partnership and that the defendants would pay to the plaintiff certain sums which compromise was incorporated in the deed of retirement dated September 23, 1975. The plaintiff averred that he is entitled to the principal amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest of Rs. 99,200/- and after giving a credit of Rs. 35.000/- received from the defendants, he claimed Rs. 3,04,200/- as due and payable by the defendants.2. An affidavit in support of summons for judgment was...
Kripashanakar Laxminarayan Trivedi Vs. Shioprasad Thanvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom118; 1986(2)BomCR691; 1985MhLJ922
Deshpande, J.1. Whether the obligation to report the vacancy under Cl. 22(1) of the Rent Control Order, 1949, arises in every case, or whether it arises only in cases where there is letting, or, in other words, whether the word 'landlord' in Cl. 22(1) embraces the term 'owner'; is the question referred by the learned single Judge (Tulpule J. ) for decision by a Division Bench.2. The petitioner claiming to be a tenant of the house No. 54 standing on Nazul Plot No. 349, Sheet No. 25-D, at Khamgaon, belonging to the respondent, at Rs. 60/- per month from Dec. 15, 1975, filed two applications - one for fixation of fair rent and the other for permission to carry out essential repairs. He also contended that a sum or Rs.500/- had been taken by the respondent from Dec. 15, 1975, filed two applications - one for fixation of fair rent and the other for permission to carry out essential repairs. He also contended that a sum of Rs. 500/- had been taken by the respondent from him as advance. The r...
Ramjibhai Potiyabhai Mahala Vs. Sitaram Jivyabhai Gavli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR414; 1986MhLJ497
Bharucha, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this election petition, is: was the first respondent disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament on the date fixed for the scrutiny of his nomination paper. It is not in dispute, since he is the returned candidate, that the acceptance of his nomination materially affected the result of the election.2. On May 2, 1959 the first respondent was appointed a junior clerk in the Administration of the Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. His appointment letter set out, inter alia, the following conditions:1. He will be governed by the Central Civil Service Rules.2. The appointment is purely on temporary basis and is liable to be terminated at ONE month's notice.. ... ... 6. Before resigning the post he shall have to give one month's notice to the Administration failing which he should have to remit one month's notice pay before he could be relieved from service.3. On November 13, 1984 general elections to Parliament...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. United Construction Company and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas163(Bom); 1985MhLJ461
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court dated December 18, 1981, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. We propose to refer to the parties hereafter, for the sake of convenience, by their original description in the suit. The plaintiff is a nationalised bank. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 74,047.36 with further interest on Rs. 69,149.26 at the rate of 17% per annum from September 1, 1976, till judgment and, thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum.2. The Rolevant facts have been set out in the judgment of the learned trial judge and hence we only propose to set out only such of those facts as are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy raised before us. On October 11, 1971, defendant No. 1 made an application to the Bandra Branch of the plaintiff bank for opening a current account. That application wa...
Bombay Paints and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: 1985(21)ELT663(Bom)
1. The Petitioners, Bombay Paints and Allied Products Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of paints. In January 1977 the petitioners imported three metric tons of 'Aluminum Silicate P. 820'. After the arrival of the goods the petitioners filed a Bill of Entry dated 25th July 1977. They classified the said goods as an 'inorganic chemical compound' under Tariff Item 28.01/58(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Customs Department however, assessed the said goods to Customs duty under Tariff Item 32.04/12(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly, the petitioners were called upon to pay a total customs duty of Rs. 22,422.80 including the basic customs duty, auxiliary duty and countervailing duty. According to the petitioners the correct total customs duty leviable was Rs. 13,514.25. The petitioners, however, paid the total customs duty demanded under protest. Thereafter on 3rd September 1977 the petitioners filed a refund application for the refund of excess customs duty amounti...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. United Construction Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom432; ILR1985Bom1856
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dt. Dec. 18,1981 dismissing the Suit filed by the appellant. We propose to refer to the parties hereafter, for the sake of convenience, by their original description in the suit. The plaintiff is a nationalised Bank. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 to 4 are the partners. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 74,047,36 with further interest on Rs. 69,149.26 at the rate of 17% per annum from Sept. 1, 1976 till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum.2. The relevant facts have been set out in the judgment of the learned trial Judge and hence we onl purpose to set out only such of those facts as are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy raised before us. On Oct. 11,1971 defendant 1 made an application to the Bandra Branch of the plaintiff Bank for opening a current account. That application was signed by defendants 2 to 4. ...
Benisham Mohanlal Khetan Vs. Mahadeo Tukaram Borkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: (1987)87BOMLR397; 1985MhLJ616
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This reference has been made to resolve a conflict on a point-Can a Civil Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code allow the plaint to be so amended as to result in ousting its own jurisdiction in the matter. In M/s. R. Jaikrishna & Co. v. A-1 Co-operating Housing Society Limited, 1971 Mh.L.J. 472 a Single Bench of this Court took a view that amendment cannot be refused merely on the ground that its effect would be to deprive the Court of jurisdiction to try the suit. Another Single Bench in the case of M/s. Nareshchandra and Co. v. M/s. New Shriram Motors, 1973 Mh.L.J. 54 C.R.A. No. 413/71 decided on 20th November, 1972 took a contrary view and held that the proper course would be to return the plaint along with an application for amendment to the plaintiff for presentation to the Proper Court.2. A Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur permitted an amendment of the plaint which had the effect of Converting a simple suit on the basis of a relationship of la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›