Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-24-1973
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
Decided on : Oct-31-1973
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
Decided on : Jul-09-1973
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
Decided on : Apr-27-1973
Reported in : [1974]94ITR616(Bom)
Deshpande, J. 1. Facts giving rise to this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are few and simple, though the case appears to involve great hardship and consequently calls for close scrutiny and analysis. The petitioner (assessee) was carrying on business of transporting iced fishes, mangoes and other goods by sea from Konkan ports to Bombay. He was the owner of a launch 'Lakshmi'. On 24th April, 1961, the Central Excise authorities seized 4,999 biscuits of gold weighing 10 tolas each from the said vessel. The Collector of Central Excise investigated the case and ultimately confiscated the gold so seized by order dated September 18, 1961. The assessee and some others were then tried before the Special Judicial and Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947. At the conclusion of the trial the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Bom82; (1973)75BOMLR532; 1973MhLJ1051
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by Judge Mehta of the Bombay City Civil Court on 24th July 1970 dismissing a Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner-wife on the 24th of April 1970 for payment pendent lite of a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in respect of her expenses of the proceeding, and for deposit of a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards the further costs of the proceeding.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are that the parties were married in Bombay on the 10th of May 1952 under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, which under Section 51(2)(a) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, must be deemed to have been a marriage solemnised under the latter Act. There are four children of the said marriage. On the 14th of November 1968, the petition out of which the present proceeding arises for divorce on the ground of desertion since the beginning of 1965, On a Notice of Motion taken out by her for interim custody, alimony, pendent lite maintenance of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-1973
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR47; [1974(29)FLR365]; (1974)IILLJ66Bom; 1974MhLJ646
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original defendant No. 1 against a decree of injunction passed by the City Civil Court and confirmed in appeal by the learned single Judge of this Court. Only two points of law are raised before us, but, in order to appreciate them, a few facts may be noted. 2. The dispute in the suit relates to the Motor Production Department in the Kurla Factory of defendant No. 1-Company known as 'Premier Automobiles Limited'. Originally, there were 425 workers in this department to which were added by about September, 1970, twenty-seven more workers who were learners. Long before this event, there was an incentive scheme in operation introduced by defendant No. 1 under an agreement dated August 5, 1964 with the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha of which plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are members. A certain scale of payment was contemplated under this agreement and this was an agreement under S. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-02-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Bom143; (1974)76BOMLR455; 1974MhLJ698
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question that has been referred to us for our decision by the Division Bench is as follows:'Whether the Officers on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notifications dated 11th March, 1969 are Courts within the meaning of the Contemplated of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act'.2. The question arises in these circumstances: Respondent No. 3 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 16 are the members. Triennial election to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 was held on 18-11-1970 under the Election Rules framed in that behalf at which two of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were the contesting candidates. The result of that election was declared on 19-11-1970 in the General Body Meeting of respondent No. 3 held on the date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 held on that date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were declared elected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-08-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Bom155; (1974)76BOMLR58; 1974MhLJ512
ORDER1. By this civil revision application the petitioner, who were the original objection petitioners, seek to challenge the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhir, dated the 24th of December 1970 , rejecting the objection petition with costs.2. In order to consider the said challenge to the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhir, it is necessary to refer to some of the salient facts.3. It is to be noticed that the dispute relates to agricultural land bearing Survey No. 10 with an area of 19 acres and 9 gunthas situate at Daithan, Thaluka Ambajogai, District Bhir, It is important to notice that the agricultural land was subject to the restrictions and prohibitions contained in the relevant tenancy enactments as to the transfer of the land and the protection given by statue to tenants on the land.4. The opponents to this petition are Baliram Jadhav and Jaiwant Jadhav, Who are said to have entered into an agreement for purchase of the suit land along with anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Bom342; (1973)75BOMLR561; 1973MhLJ960
Deshmukh, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the execution proceedings. The facts are no longer in dispute. The respondent-Bank as a plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 115 of 1949 against the appellant-defendant on the basis of a simple mortgage bond to enforce their debt by sale of a mortgaged property. This suit resulted in a final decree on 31-10-1949. It was an instalment decree payable by an annual instalment of Rs. 700. The first of such instalments was payable on 30th June, 1950 and regularly thereafter on the same date in the subsequent years. ON failure of payment of any two instalments, the entire decretal amount was due and payable. It appears that the first instalment was paid but thereafter there was no regular payment made within the time provided by the decree. Three Darkhast were given from time to time in 1955, 1958 and 1961. After Special Darkhast No. 48/61 was disposed of on 6-5-1962, the present Darkhast has been filed on February 7, 1963. It is out of this last Darkhast t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-12-1973
Reported in : [1974]94ITR519(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside an order of rectification of a wealth-tax assessment passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax (respondent No. 1) on the 22nd of February, 1972, pursuant to the amendment effected in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 (Act No. 32 of 1971) as well as for a writ in the nature of prohibition and/or mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any further steps or proceedings for recovery of the tax on jewellery and ornaments in enforcement of the said rectification order dated 22nd February, 1972. 2. The petitioner is a lady who was assessed by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1969-70 to Wealth-tax on the total wealth of Rs. 6,07,690, including jewellery and ornaments of the value of Rs. 4,15,942 by the assessment order dated 11th F...
Tag this Judgment!