Mumbai Court March 1949 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Pranshankar Shambhuram Raval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR671
Chainani, J.1. In this case a prosecution was instituted against the two accused under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, before Khan Saheb S.K. Desai, who was then City Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, After he had recorded some evidence, further hearing of the case was postponed, as the prosecution wanted to consider the question of its withdrawal. Eventually it was decided that the case should be proceeded with. In the meantime Khan Saheb S.K. Desai had retired, and the case came up for hearing before Mr. R.K. Desai. The accused then made a request that all the witnesses previously examined should be recalled and reheard, and this request was granted. A question then arose whether the evidence of these witnesses recorded before Khan Saheb S.K. Desai was or was not to be regarded as evidence in the case. The Magistrate heard the advocates on both sides and then passed an order in the following terms on January 29 1948.I decide that the previous evidence stands and is ...
Emperor Vs. Pranshankar Shambhuram Raval and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom14
Chainani, J.1. In this case a prosecution was instituted against the two accused under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, 1939, before Khan Saheb S.K. Desai, who was then City Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad. After he had recorded some evidence, further hearing of the case was postponed, as the prosecution wanted to consider the question of its withdrawal. Eventually it was decided that the case should be proceeded with. In the meantime Khan Saheb S.K. Desai had retired, and the case came up for hearing before Mr. R.K. Desai. The accused then made a request that all the witnesses previously examined should be recalled and reheard, and this request was granted. A question then arose whether the evidence of these witnesses recorded before Khan Saheb S.K. Desai was or was not to be regarded as evidence in the case. The Magistrate heard the advocates on both sides and then passed an order in the following terms on 29th January 1948. 'I decide that the previous evidence stands and is n...
Natvarlal Punjabhai and ors. Vs. Dadubhai Manubhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom55
Chagla, C.J.1. We may mention one further contention which was urged by Mr. Shah at one stage which seemed to us to make it possible to dispose of this appeal. Mr. Shah's contention was that the Deputy Nazir as the guardian of Punjabhai was appointed on 29th November 1924, and he went into possession of the property in 1925. In 1929 Punjabhai attained majority. When Punjabhai died in 1931 the Deputy Nazir was appointed as the guardian of the property of defendants 1 and 2. The learned Judge has held, in our opinion rightly held, that from 1925 the Deputy Nazir for Punjabhai was in possession of half the share of the property claimed by the plaintiffs adversely to Kashibai. There can be no doubt that the possession of the Deputy Nazir for Punjabhai was adverse, because in the order made on 29th November 1924, in face of Bai Kashi's contention that Punjabhai was not entitled to the whole of the estate left by Mathurbhai, the Court appointed the Deputy Nazir the guardian of Punjabhai of t...
Kondiba Vithoba Shinde Vs. Dagdu Rama Khendke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom366; (1949)51BOMLR631
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Judge, Ahmednagar, holding that the decision of the Extra Joint Sub-Judge, Ahmednagar, that a transaction dated May 8, 1919, was a sale and not a mortgage as contended by the plaintiff, was not correct. In passing this order the learned District Judge was exercising jurisdiction vested in him under Section 53 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and that section confers upon him revisional powers of the nature stated in that section. It is competent to him to set aside an order made by the trial Court if he is satisfied that that order is erroneous either because it is illegal or it is improper, and the proviso to that section really indicates what is the foundation of the jurisdiction, conferred under that section, and that foundation is that no decree or order shall be reversed or altered for any error or defect or otherwise, unless a failure of justice appears to have taken place.2. Now...
Western India Automobile Association Vs. the Industrial Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR894
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a division bench of the High Court of Bombay cancelling a writ of prohibition issued by Coyajee J. against the Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute between the Western India Automobile Association and its workers had been referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947.2. Though a number of points were raised before Coyajee J. and before the division bench, the principal question raised by this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act to entertain the dispute which had been referred to it. The controversy is firstly as to the scope of the Act, i.e., whether the Act has application to cases of private employers or is limited only to cases where either the Central or the Provincial Government, or a local authority is the employer, and secondly, as to whether the dispute as to reinstatement of certain dismissed employees is a matter which is referable to the Tribunal.3. On an app...
F.W. Heilgers and Co. Vs. Nagesh Chandra Chakravarty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR23
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. The appellant (petitioner) is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and carries on btisiness in Calcutta inter alia as the managing agent of the Titagarh Paper Mills Company, Ltd., and other companies. At all material times the company had employed about 5,400 workmen and 370 clerks. Early in December, 1946, two trade unions of the company's employees were formed and registered under the Trade Unions Act. On March 14, 1947, there was a strike which continued up to May 23, 1947. The employees claimed from the company bonus for work done by them during the period of war. They further claimed the grant of annual bonus equivalent to one month's pay for the years 1945 and 1946 and lastly they claimed the introduction of a profit- sharing scheme, with effect from January, 1947, which will give them a profit-sharing bonus in each succeeding year. The first claim...
The India Paper Pulp Co. Ltd. Vs. the India Paper Pulp Workers' Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR176
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal and involves principally the question of the re-instatement of 109 employees of the appellant company, who were discharged after notice was given to them on December 4, 1947. Their service was terminated as at the end of January and their full pay for the months of December 1947 and January 1948 was paid to them.2. The relevant facts are these. On September 10, 1946, the employees of the appellant company formed into an union, which was registered on December 3, 1946. It was alleged that almost all the employees of the company became members of the union. On December 24, 1946, the union submitted to the company a memorandum of the demands of the employees, for the amelioration of their condition. The company declared a lock-out on February 28, 1947, and negotiations through the Labour Commissioner for re-opening the factory having failed, the Government of West Bengal ...
Roberts Mclean and Co. Ltd. Vs. A.T. Das Gupta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR179
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court, of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. The material facts are these.2. The appellant (petitioner) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business, amongst other places, at No. 101, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, within the Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. By an order of the Government of West Bengal, dated May 15, 1947, Mr. Waight was appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal for adjudication of a dispute between the petitioner and the Roberts McLean Employees Union, having its office in Calcutta. Notices of proceeding with the adjudication were issued in due course. By an order of the Government of West; Bengal, dated September 1, 1947, the order of May 15, 1947, was amended so as to make the reference to Mr. A.T. Das Gupta. The said Tribunal proceeded with the matter and Mr. A.T. Das Gupta made his award on January 10, 1948....
The Shamnugger Jute Factory Co. Ltd. Vs. S.M. Modak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR178
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. The appellant (petitioner) is a limited company incorporated under the Scottish Companies Act and having its registered office in Dundee, Scotland, and carrying on business, inter alia, in Calcutta within the Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant employed at its mill about 4844 workmen. On February 9, 1948, the petitioner employed one Kishan Deo, but his services were terminated on March 23, 1948. There appeared to have been trouble in respect of the discontinuance in service of this employee, and apprehending a breach of the peace, the petitioners put up a notice closing the mill. The mill was re-opened after a few days, but the workmen did not return to work because Kishan Deo and two other workmen were not offered re-employment. The Government of West Bengal, acting under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred for adjudication b...
Vijaysingrao Balasaheb Shinde Desai Vs. Janardanrao Narayanrao Shinde ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom314; (1949)51BOMLR556
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and for possession of his half share in the properties in suit. The plaintiff's ease was that these properties were joint family properties, and the joint family consisted of his father Narayanrao, his elder brother Balasaheb and himself. Narayanrao died in 1927, Balasaheb died on January 5, 1934, and according to the plaintiff he became the karta of the family on the death of Balasaheb. Balasaheb left two sons, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, there were disputes between him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and hence he filed a suit for partition. He also in this suit challenged various alienations made by his father Narayanrao and brought the alienees on the record of the suit. The defence of defendant No. 1 was that the properties in suit were watan properties, they were impartible and governed by the rule of primogeniture, and therefore on the death of Narayanrao, Balasaheb woul...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »