Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: bombay non agriculturists loans act 1928 maharashtra section 6 power to make rules Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.359 seconds)

Jul 23 1968 (HC)

Leela Dhundiraj Divekar Vs. E.C. Shinde and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-23-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Bom109; (1969)71BOMLR305; 1969MhLJ487

..... within article iii of the table of fees prepared by the government of maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 78 of the registration act, as being a release executed in pursuance of some other document on which ..... it is the contention of mr. bharucha for the defendants that this suit should have been filed in the bombay city civil court as being the civil court of the lowest grade within the local limits of whose original ..... my opinion, such a suit would not be governed by section 8 of the suits valuation act, 1887, and there being no rules framed by the high court under section 9 of that act, the plaintiff would be entitled to put his own valuation ..... which arose in the latter case was whether the delay on the part of the applicant in making an application under section 417(3) of the criminal procedure code for the grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal ..... plea of limitation as well as the plea of non-maintainability of the suit which are to be found pleaded in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the ..... the plaint.(4) whether the plaintiff is entitled to any and, if so. what relief?6. it may be mentioned that mr. bharucha for the defendants stated that he desired to give up the ..... 1928 bom 553 that though the stamp act and the registration act cannot, strictly speaking be said to be enactments which are in pari materia, the two acts may be read together and the definitions in the stamp act apply to the registration act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1968 (HC)

Belapur Co. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Bom231; 1970MhLJ330

..... for the supply of sugarcane by the state government. in this connection it is pertinent to note that rule 12c which has been framed by the state government under its alleged rule-making power under section 46 (2) (d) of the maharashtra agricultural lands (ceiling on holdings) act, 1961, makes it perfectly clear that it is open to the defendants to charge less than the fair price determined ..... the kolhapur sugar mills ltd. alone. the said advisory committee held a meeting at poona on the 6th of november 1967, and another meeting, which was the final meeting at bombay, on the 8th of november 1967, and the said g. j. ruparel, after lodging a strong protest, left the said final meeting. this fact appears from a letter dated 7th ..... corporation with the plaintiff company as a result of discussions with their representatives. the material portion of the agreement approved of by the said resolution was in the following terms:'6. the prices of cane to be charged by the corporation. - the prices to be charged for the corporation's sugarcane shall be governed by the notifications issued by the government ..... to the suit and in its absence the suit is bad for non-joinder as alleged in para 1 of the written statement. (2) whether there is any cause of action against the defendants which survives, in view of the resolution dated the 9th november 1967 of the government of maharashtra determining the fair price at which the defendants are to supply .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1968 (HC)

Prabhakar Ganpatrao Samel Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-27-1968

Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR500; 1967MhLJ9

..... of trading in any of the food-grains or articles referred to in the act. it is no doubt true that there is no express power. sub-section (2) refers to the provisions of sub-section (1) and to its generality and makes provision for orders regarding the several matters. inasmuch as by clause (f) a ..... to be computed as provided therein and the price is specified under clause 14 which relates to fixation of the price. clause 6 is a corresponding provision which touches other than agriculturists, who may possess excess stocks of foodgrains and who can be called upon by the collector or any officer authorised by him ..... placed on the decision in ramanlal v. m. s. palnitkar a.i.r. [1961] guj. 38. in this case, after the issuing of the bombay sugar dealers licensing order, 1959, several dealers were given licenses to deal in wholesale sugar. the sugar quota allotted to the state by the central government used ..... this order is invalid for any of the reasons alleged by the petitioners.51. in the result, the petitions fail and the rules in all these cases are discharged. we quantify the cost at rs. 750 in each of the petitions which the petitioners will pay to the respondent- ..... maharashtra (1968) second appeal no. 1186 of 1900 decided by chitale and nam jj., on february 27, 1968 (unrep.) by a division bench of this court of which my learned brother was a member. these decisions are binding' on us. unless it is shown that the petitioners were hurt either by arbitrary refusal of the permits or non .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1968 (HC)

N.J. Nayadu and Co. and ors. Vs. Administrator of the City of Nagpur a ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-11-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Bom59; (1969)71BOMLR253; ILR1970Bom68; 1969MhLJ234

..... similarly in the case of the corporation act, there are no guidelines either in section 114 or in any other provisions, which could be reasonably said to lay down guidance for the subordinate authority, namely, the corporation or the state government, in making rules as to what should be the ..... is also made to other decisions of the supreme court. the first case was vasanlal maganbhai v. state of bombay, : 1978crilj1281 where the provisions of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act giving power to the government to fix a lower rate of maximum rent payable by the tenants were under challenge. the other ..... general terms and leave the implementation of the policy to subordinate agencies. then reference is made to the decision of the american supreme court in (1928) 276 us 394 : 72 law ed 624, j. w. hampton jr. and co. v. united states where a legislation of this type ..... legitimately left by a statute to a non-legislative authority, for we see no distinction in principle between delegation of power to fix rates of taxes to be charged on different classes of goods and power to fix rates simpliclter, if power to fix rates in some cases can ..... making rules or bye-laws, then such a provision in the statute itself is liable to be struck down as amounting to delegation in excess of legitimate bounds. the question is whether the provisions of the corporation act, in the light of other pronouncements of the highest court in this country, will justify such a construction and conclusion sion.6 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1968 (HC)

Gitabai Vs. Dayaram Shankar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-04-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Bom160; (1970)72BOMLR32; ILR1970Bom572; 1969MhLJ838

..... may be mentioned that after securing the orderfrom the tahsildar, the petitioner filed an application under section 120 (c) of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands (vidarbha region) act, 1958, claiming possession of the field from dayaram on the ground that he was in ..... the years 1952-53 and 1953-54. it must be remembered that the dispute was raised in 1963 and ordinarily agriculturists are not expected to retain receipts of payment long after they are made. even persons given to keep regular accounts ..... the court. we are constrained to observe that this elementary precaution is not taken even in proceedings before the maharashtra revenue tribunal. the courts are enjoined that no presiding officer is empowered to allow a party to take back ..... decided. as tribunals of limited jurisdiction exercising exclusive powers under special acts, there is a special responsibility cast on the presiding officers of the tribunals faithfully to observe these rules of procedure which are also rules of caution. if a party is allowed ..... acres 27, gunthas of mouza nund-dhan, in amravati district. he impleaded the respondent no. 2 sukhadeo as a non-applicant to this application. dayaram claimed that he had been holding the land as a tenant from before 1958-59, ..... and the conclusions drawn therefrom, by the superior courts.6. the additional tahsildar had observed that dayaram failed to prove that he had taken lease in 1952-53 from sukhdeo and in making this observation, he apparently failed to consider the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1968 (HC)

Karim Bux and ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Sep-27-1968

Reported in : 1969CriLJ907

..... act is entirely different from the act and the rules before us. section 3 of the act confers power of detention. section 7 requires the detaining authority to furnish grounds of detention to the detenu to make a representation. section 8 requires the setting. up of advisory board. section ..... : 1966crilj602 , ujagar singh v. state of punjab : [1952]1scr756 and godavari shamrao parulekar v. state of maharashtra : 1964crilj222 .23. by these rulings it has now been conclusively settled that the mere fact that a person is under preventive detention as distinguished from punitive ..... v. legislative committee of the church assembly; ex parte haynes smith 1928-1 kb 411, before it can be said that a body of persons have to act judicially it must be shown not only that the body had legal authority ..... security of state is ultra vires and beyond the competence of the state legislature.(6) the present detention of the petitioners under the preventive detention act particularly for security of the state is not covered by the reasons connected with ..... bombay under section 9 of the act no opportunity was given to him for making a representation to the advisory board. now we have carefully considered the combined effects of sections 9 and 10 of the act and we find that the said sections ..... the government could ignore the opinion and treat it as non est in is the opinion of the advisory board that is relevant both under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 11, the opinion of the advisory board reported by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //