Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1984
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR46
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. These two proceedings arise out of a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The dispute pertains to the question as to whether the orders passed by the tenancy authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, directing that the tenant should hand over possession of Serial No. 708/2 situate at Kadamwadi are void and without jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities. In order to understand the controversy, it would be necessary to refer to certain facts over which there cannot be any dispute at this stage. Instead of referring to the parties as the petitioners and the respondents, it would be more convenient to refer to then by names.2. Ramrao Pawar (who died pending the tenancy litigation and whose legal representatives are the petitioners in both these petitions) was a tenant of Serial No. 709/2. This land is within Municipal limits. Shankar Alrekar (who is respondent No. 1 in these matters) is the landlord. The land was let out to Ramrao Paw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Bom413; (1984)86BOMLR339; 1984MhLJ576
Mohta, J.1. Has Madanlal sharma v. Smt. Santosh Sharma 1980 M LJ 391 correctly laid down the law relating to 'cruelty' as a ground for divorce as envisaged by S. 13(1)(I-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('The Act' for short) is a point which needs answer in this reference to the Full Bench.2. First of all, the factual back ground. Appellant Dr. K. K. Londhe, married the respondent Mrs. Nisha Londhe in the year 1950. The respondent is Christian by birth but she was converted to Hinduism and the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites. During the period of 16 years of marital life, the couple was blessed with three children. The married life unfortunately was unhappy. The respondent had gone to Bangalore some time after May 1966. In September 1966. She gave a notice to the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights to which no response was given. She therefore, filed a petition for custody of the children and also filed a civil suit for maintenance. In the year 1967, the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-28-1984
Reported in : (1985)IILLJ24Bom; 1985MhLJ1
Deshpande, J.1. By these two petitions, the petitioners pray for striking down the amendment to S. 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXXIX of 1948), effected by S. 2(b) of the Maharashtra Act No. LXIV of 1977.2. The petitioners contend that they do not have any establishment as contemplated by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 ('the Shops Act' for short). Petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 1165 of 1978 has employed only one clerk who does miscellaneous work like keeping briefs and carrying them to the Court, and he never employs any organised labour which is involved in carrying on the legal profession by the petitioner.3. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1185 of 1978 is also an Advocate. Besides being an Advocate, he is also duly elected as the Secretary of the Akola Bar Association. The Shop Inspector of the first respondent, Municipal Council, Akola, issued instructions to this petitioner requiring him to regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-05-1984
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR303
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Factory premises at 164, Tulsi Pipe Road, Matunga, Bombay-400 016, and two shops being Nos. 16 and 5-A on the ground floor of Hari Niwas abutting Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim, Bombay, have been the subject matter of the present long drawn litigation. The premises at Tulsi Pipe Road, 18' x 36' formerly belonged to one Devidas and having been designed as a shed are used mainly as a factory rather than as a shop. This shed changed hands and when D. Rustom Ltd. were in possession of the same, Namdev Vishnu Kinalekar (Namdev) the plaintiff, took the premises sometime in 1951-52 on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Namdev who had a mechanic's background had a large family of five sons and two daughters. He bought some shearing, metal cutting, drilling, binding machines, some hand presses, a spray printing machine, an electric over and set up a factory for the purposes manufacturing electrical equipments. The factory was well equipped with other accessories like vices, jacks, blowers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-09-1984
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition filed by Escorts Ltd. and its shareholder and managing director are quite unique and important. The decision thereon may affect not only the petitioner-company but the entire corporate sector and the public financial institutions. Naturally, this writ petition has attracted considerable public attention both lay and legal. Quite a few facts are required to notice to appreciate the issue canvassed in this case. Though inferences sought to be down and the conclusions sought to be pressed by the parties form the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition differ, the facts themselves in the ultimate analysis are not very much in dispute.2. Till 1980, among the non-residents, only individuals of Indian nationality origin were given the facility to invest in Indian Industries; not the companies. The Government of India was eager to attract larger foreign remittances into India. In a report of the Wo...
Tag this Judgment!