Mumbai Court September 1987 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.
Ganpatlal Baldeo Chamedia Vs. Purshottam Ramgopal Bajoria and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR562; 1988MhLJ469
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Under section 57 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (the Tenancy Act), a tenant who purchases land under certain provisions of the said Act cannot make certain transfers without previous sanction of the Collector, which sanction is to be accorded in the circumstances specified by Rule 31-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1959 (the Rules). We extract the relevant provisions :Section 57. (1) No land purchased by a tenant under section 41 or 46 or 49-A or 57-D or 130 or sold to any person under section 91 or 122 shall he transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment without the previous sanction of the Collector. Such sanction shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government.(2) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be invalid:Provided that nothing in this section shall ap...
Shridhar S/O Ramchandra Alsi Vs. Shamrao Vithoba Bhonsale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR635
A.A. Desai, J.1. The only grievance tried to be made out in this revision is regarding non-compliance of Rule 11 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. Bapat, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, that in view of the provisions laid down in the said rule, the Court was under obligation to record the answer of a question which has been rejected by him on an objection raised by the other side.2. According to the applicant-plaintiff they filed the suit for ejectment and possession against the non-applicants. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, Shamrao Bhonsale entered into the witness box on behalf of the defendant. While cross-examining, this witness was put to a particular question, which was objected by the defendant on the ground of admissibility as the same is beyond the pleading of the parties. The learned trial Court upheld the objection and rejected the question put by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court in the deposition recorde...
C.V. Narayanam Vs. Jaya Auto Repairs Works and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ61Bom
Kantharia, J. 1. The petitioner, according to him, was working as a Clerk on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,400/- with the first respondent for about 19 years. His services were terminated by an order of discharge simpliciter dated 9th June, 1982 on the ground of loss of confidence. He was not given show cause notice or a charge-sheet nor was any enquiry held against him. He, therefore, served a notice of demand on the first respondent for withdrawing the termination order and reinstate him with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Since his demand was not conceded to, he approached the office of the Labour Commissioner for taking up an industrial dispute on his behalf for his reinstatement contending that the termination order passed against him by the first respondent was illegal. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay (the third respondent) vide his letter dated 8th March, 1982 informed the petitioner that he did not propose to intervene in the matter as the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›