Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-01-1983
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR503
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. First Appeal Nos. 610 and 611 of 1975 arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane in Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 1972. First Appeal No. 7W of 1977 arises out of an order passed by the City Civil Court in Charity Application No. 23 of 1973 under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). , As the common question in regard to the title of Mahant to be a trustee of the disputed trust is involved, all these matters are taken together for hearing.2. The facts leading to First Appeal No. 610 of 1975 may be stated as follows:In the City of Bombay, there is a public charitable trust, known as 'Shree Kabirwadi Mandir Trust', having its registered office at Grant Road, which was registered at P.T.R- No. 1-2553 (Bombay) on January 5, 1962. One Paitudas Guru Sevadasji was the Mahant of the said Kabir Wadi Mandir. He was administrating the trust and managing the trust properties. Paitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-19-1983
Reported in : 1984(1)BomCR20
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay in an interim notice No. 3324 of 1983 in R.A.E. Declaratory Suit No. 1270/4483 of 1973, on 1st June, 1983, granting plaintiffs' application in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c), or para 30, thereof namely allowing the plaintiffs to implead the Union of India and Shri Mistry as party defendants to the suit, granting amendment of the plaint and ad interim injunction restraining the Union of India and K.K. Mistry from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit premises.2. It appears from the record that the plaintiffs filed a suit initially against one Shri Saxena, Executor of the Will to late Shrimati Meenakumari. In the said suit, it was the case of the plaintiffs, M/s. Laljee Brothers a registered firm, that they were placed in possession of the suit premises on 16th October, 1972, as licensee. They were in possession of the premises lawfull...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-28-1983
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1769
Pratap, J.1. This appeal by the original accused questions the legality and validity of the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in sessions Case No. 150 of 1979, the conviction being for an offence of murder punishable under S. 302. Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed in that behalf.2. The accused Balu Ganpat Koshire was married to Mira some time in 1973. Of the said marriage, the couple had a son Sandip who was four years' old at the time of the incident. The incident constituting of subject matter of the present prosecution occurred in the evening at about 7 O'clock on 26-9-1979 in the house of the accused. In the early part of the very day, the accused, his wife Mira and their son Sandip had returned from about a month's residence at Vani at the house of Hirabai, the sister of the accused. Just prior to the occurrence in question, wife Mira and son Sandip were sitting in their field near thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-08-1983
Reported in : AIR1983Bom235; 1984(1)BomCR222
1. The Petitioner herein, Neeta Deelipkumar Suchak, has filed, this Petition in forma pauperis against her husband-Respondent No. 1 her husband's three brothers--Respondents Nos. 2. 3 & 5 as also against her father-in-law Respondent No. 4. and two Companies--Respondents Nos. 6 and 7, being the partnership Firms of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The Petitioner has sprayed firstly that she may be permitted to sue in forma pauperis; Secondly that, the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered and decreed to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the petition; thirdly, the petitioner prays for a decree against the Respondent for the sum of Rs. 27,528/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18 percent per annum from 21-10-1979 till payment; fourthly the Petitioner has prayed that Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered to return to the petitioner articles and things mentioned in Exhibit 'D' to the Petition, or in the alternative, in the event of Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 fail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-01-1983
Reported in : AIR1983Bom317; (1983)85BOMLR134
Madon C.J. 1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the constitutionality of Section 73BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIV of 1961) and of the Government Resolution No. CSL 1577/ 14599-15-C dated Sept. 13, 1977 issued by the Agriculture and Co-operation Department of the Government of Maharashtra. As the grounds of challenge in these petitions to the said section and the said Government Resolution are mostly the same, we have thought it convenient to dispose of these three petitions by a common judgment.2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1440 of 1981 are the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited and two of its members and shareholders. In Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1981 the Petitioners are the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited and two of its members and shareholders and in Writ Petition No. 120 of 1980 the petitioners are the Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited and one of its membe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-27-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Bom144
ORDER1. All these eight writ petitions arise out of the judgments passed by the Administrative Tribunal , dismissing appeals filed by the petitioners against Orders of eviction made by the Rent controller under Ss. 22(2)(a) or s. 32 (4) of the Goa, Adman and diu Buildings (Lease , Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 19968 (hereinafter called the Act for sake of brevity). Though the facts that led to said orders of eviction and judgment are not the same and, therefore, some of the grounds of attack offer in according with the peculiarities of each case, the main challenge is nevertheless common. It becomes , thus, appropriate and convenient to jointly dispose of all these petitions and accordingly of they will be death with by this single judgment.2. In the petition No. 165|75, the petitioners case is that, nor about 29th June, 1970, respondent 3,4 and 5 instituted in the court of the Rent controller, North Goa, proceedings for eviction of the petitioners from a house existing at Ribabdarab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1983
Reported in : (1983)4ITD409(Mum.)
1. The first appeal is by the assessee and the second appeal by the department.2. On 11-12-1931 was born in the village of Kuchwara, Madhya Pradesh, Rajneesh Chandra Mohan, who afterwards became Acharya Rajneesh. After obtaining his M.A. Degree, Chandra Mohan taught at the Raipur Sanskrit College from 1957 to 1959 and was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Jabalpur between 1960-1966. He resigned his professorship in 1966 allegedly to devote himself to spiritual work. He is stated to have travelled extensively delivering lectures between the years 1958 and 1969, until he settled in Bombay in 1969. He is stated to have held a meditation camp for the first time in 1964 in Rajasthan. After 1969, many public lectures and appearances were ascribed to him. He also had written profusely on spiritual and allied subjects.3. By an indenture of trust dated 11-6-1969, Shri Himatlal Haribhai Joshi and Shri Ishwarlal Naranji Shah as settlors drew up a trust deed creating the trust known ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-14-1983
Reported in : AIR1983Bom190; [1983]52STC290(Bom); 1983TAXLR2871
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. All these references pertain to two daily publications called 'Joker' and 'Jabara' printed by the respondents. Reference No. 8 of 1979 pertains to the assessment period 1st January, 1972, to 31st December, 1972, Reference No. 9 of 1979 pertains to the assessment period 1st January, 1971, to 31st December, 1971, Reference No. 10 of 1979 pertain to the assessment period 1st January, 1970, to 31st December, 1970, and Reference No. 11 of 1979 pertains to the assessment period 1st April, 1964, to 31st December, 1964.2. It appears that in view of a certain intimation received by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, the place of business of the assessee was visited by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, on 11th August, 1972, and 14th August, 1972. On taking search of the business premises of the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer found that the assessee was printing two pamphlets, viz., 'Joker' and 'Jabara'. The assessee informed the Sales Tax Officer that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-17-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Bom461; 1984MhLJ144
Ginwala, J.1. these two writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment since they raise a common question about the validity f o the Daman (Abolition of ....................... Regulation, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation') and the orders passed by the collector of Daman under it.2. In order to appreciated properly the various contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners,s it would be convenient at the outset to take not of the legislative and judicial history of the regulation and its salient features. The territories which immediately before 20-12-1961 were declared as Union territory by including there in Part 11 of the First Sch of the Constitution by the Constitution (`` Amendment) Act, 1962, By the said Amending Act this Union Territory was included in cl. (1) of Art 240 of the Countitution, thus enabling the president of India to make regulations for its peace. Progress and good government In exercise of the powers so cinferred on him by the ...
Tag this Judgment!