Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR643
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the proceedings taken for acquisition of the lands of the petitioner. The lauds under acquisition are survey Nos. 34, H. No. 1, S, No. 35, H. No. 5, S. No. 35, II. No. 8 and portions of survey Nos. 53 and 52 in all admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas situated at Panch Pakhadi in Taluka and District Thana. The circumstances which led to the filing of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 9, 1960 and published in the Government Gazette on July 21, 1960 with a view to acquiring land for a company, M/s. Voltas Limited. That notification was not on the record but we have allowed the petitioner to present a copy thereof in the course of the arguments before us. Objections were invited, under Section 5A, on July 25, 1960 and filed by the petitioner, on August 30, 1960. The petitioner was then heard and was himself present. This was on October 17, 1960. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR777
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed in Chambers by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai on October 10, 1966, dismissing a petition filed by the appellants to set aside an award made on May 4, 1966, by Mr. P. P. Khambatta, a senior advocate of this Court.2. The circumstances under which the appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows; The appellants are the Asia Publishing House and P. S. Jayasinghe. Appellant No. 1 is merely the trade name of appellant No. 2 who is the sole proprietor of the business of Asia Publishing House. The respondents John Wiley & Sons, Inc. are a corporation registered in the State of New York in the United States of America. They carry on the business of publishers and they have appeared throughout by a constituted attorney in all these proceedings.3. On October 1, 1956, the appellants and the respondents entered into an agreement exh. A whereby the appellants were appointed publishers of certain books or titles as they have been referred to in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom312; (1969)71BOMLR569; ILR1969Bom1024; 1969MhLJ798
1. This second appeal raises novel and difficult points with regard to the relations between a modern educated husband and his wife in Hindu Society.2. The appellant in this appeal is the husband Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane. The respondent is his wife Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastaoe. They were married according to Vedic rites on May 13, 1956 in Poona. A daughter Shobha was born on March 11, 1957, a second daughter Vibhavari was born on March 20, 1959, and before the third daughter. Prabha was delivered, the husband and wife unfortunately fell out as it is undisputed that they have been living separately from each other since March 1961.3. On February 19, 1962, the appellant filed the petition from which the present second appeal arises. In that petition the appellant prayed in the first instance for a declaration annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the consent of the husband for the marriage was obtained by fraud. According to the husb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1974Bom122; 1974MhLJ257
ORDER1. The present petition has been filed by the legal representatives of Bhagwan Punaji Bari, a tenant upon survey No.701, area 3.31 acres of Rtamtakpura, Akot, district Akola. it is no more in dispute that said Bhagwan was the tenant and that these petitioners are his legal representatives. it is further not in dispute that the field is situated in Akot town and it is within the muncipal limits.2. With respect to this field, the respondent-landlord Onkarlal filed an applicaiton purporting to be under Section 58 (93) (c) read with Section 36 (92) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, here-in-after called the Act, after giving a notice that he wanted this land for personal agricultural cultivation. it was further stated in the body of the petition that the land in question is a horticultural one and had been left out for tha purpose and the rights of hte parties are governed by Section 58 only.3. It may be mentioned that it is not disputed that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1974Bom142; 1974MhLJ183
ORDER1. the present peritioner Jamnabai claims to be the successor of one Deokabai, who died on February 1. 1966, Said deokanai was the tenure holder of survey No. 121/1 and survey No. 122. of village Kandli, district Amarland was leased to Suryabhan, the present respondent, and further that the lease of Suryabhan was governed by the provisions of section 58(I) (c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act).2. Jamnabai gave notice on 16-5-1966 and applied for possession on September 30, 1967.3. This application has been found to be barred by time, as having been filed after one year from the death of original landlady Deokabai, i.e., February 1, 1966. All the authorities under the provisions of the act have concurred in this view.4. To find out limitation so as to non-suit the present petitioner, provisions of sub-section (2) (B) of section 38 of the Act have been applied. It is found that this sub-section and the provisions cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR375
Bhole, J.1. An important point of law under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Societies Act') arises in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by my learned brother Vaidya J. in the appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissing the Chamber Summons taken out by him. An ex parts decree for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and odd was passed in the suit by the decree-holder, on March 31, 1970. The decree-holder then took out a warrant of attachment of Flat No. 9 in the building belonging to Paresh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Society registered under the Societies Act. The flat was attached on August 8, 1970 after serving the warrant on the judgment-debtor in the jail at Rajkot. He appears to have been convicted in a criminal case and was, therefore, suffering imprisonment at Rajkot. The decree-holder thereafter applied for the sale of the said flat and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1979(4)ELT158(Bom)
Mukhi, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India in the Department of Central Excise against a decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in favour of the respondents Mansingka Industries Private Limited' a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and inter alia manufacturing vegetable products at Pachora in District Jalgaon.2. The respondents-plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon, contending that the Union of India had illegally recovered from them certain moneys purported to be excise duties under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944')3. As stated, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, who inter alia ordered that an amount of Rs. 60,334.66, being the balance amount illegally collected as excise duty, be refunded to the respondents.4. Two short points arise in this appeal. But before we discuss them it is necessary to set out some facts.5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR37
Mukhi, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question of law as to whether the cost of packing of excisable goods can be included for the purpose of determining the value thereof under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Now, we should have thought that this question has already been determined and concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union v. Mansingka Industries (1974) 77 Bom. L.R. 663.3. It requires to be noticed that in that judgment reference is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. : 1973ECR60(SC) , in which the scope and content of Section 4 of the Act was considered.4. The learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that these decisions did not conclude the questions which arise in the petition before us. He added that there were certain contentions which did not arise in previous eases.5. It will, therefore, be necessary to examine the ratio of these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1976Bom165
Deshmukh, J.1. These two petitions are filed on behalf of the detenus who have been detained under Section 3(a) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 as amended and both have been detained by the Order of the Central Government. The petition itself contains several prayers like granting a writ of certiorari for calling the records and quashing the order, or a writ of mandamus, but the petitions read as whole are primarily and mainly for the release of the petitioners from custody which is described as a prison. In essence, therefore, these are petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.2. Such petitions till now were registered by the Office of this Court as criminal applications. The parties also clearly presented them as criminal applications and till the two petitions were so presented as Spl. C. As. they were always numbered as criminal applications. It appears that the understanding, or as is now being styled as misunderstanding, was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR549
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vimadalal J. given on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. By his judgment and order dated February 24, 1976 he held that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the appellant plaintiff's suit and answered the preliminary issue in the negative and against the plaintiff and consequentially the suit was dismissed with costs.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank of America'), a corporation incorporated in the United States of America. The plaint, however, goes on to describe the defendant further as having a principal place of business in India located at 18, Bruce Street, Bombay-1. The claim in the suit is a money claim for Rs. 5,40,000 (Rupee equivalent of 'U.S. Dollars 72,000) and for compensation and damages assessed by the plaintiff in respect of various items specified in para. 115 of the plaint. This claim for compe...
Tag this Judgment!