Mumbai Court September 1950 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.
Wasudeorao G. Sheorey Vs. Gopal Dattatraya Karkare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ663
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appln. under Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act, by an accused person for taking suitable action against the non-appct, for alleged contempt of Ct.2. The non-appct. Shri Karkare is the Editor of a weekly newspaper called 'New Leader', while the appct. is the Managing Editor of a daily newspaper called 'The Nagpur Times'. There appeared, according to the non-appct. in the issue of Nagpur Times of 19-2-1950 an article entitled 'Ethics of Shoe-beating'. Alleging that this article contained matter which, besides being 'grossly insulting to him' and defamatory, was an 'open incitement to the unintelligent and easily excitable' element in society to use violence against him, he preferred a complaint against the appct. in the Ct. of a Mag. First Class, Nagpur, under Sections 500 and 504, I. P. Code on 20-2-1960.3. In the issue of the New Leader of 22-2-1950 there appeared an open letter to the Directors of 'Nawa Samaj Ltd.,' which company owns the 'Nagpur Times'. Tha...
Suryaprakash Weaving Factory Vs. the Industrial Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom16; (1950)52BOMLR902; ILR1951Bom232
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an petition filed for an order under Section 45, Specific-Relief Act, requiring the Industrial Court of Bombay to forbear from arbitrating upon certain industrial disputes. Tendolkar J. before whom the petition came in the first instance held that the petition must fail on certains preliminary grounds. An appeal was preferred from that decision and the Court of appeal held that it was competent to the Court to issue and order under Section 45 if it was found that the reference made to the Industrial Court was not a proper reference. Therefore the petition again went back to Tondolkar J. to consider it on merits who finally dismissed it. It is from that order of dismissal that this appeal is preferred.2. The one short point that has been urged by Mr. Amin on behalf of the petitioners is that Government wore not competent to refer the dispute between the petitioners and their employees to the Industrial Court as they purported to do. It is urged ...
Mohsinali Mahomedali and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom303; (1951)53BOMLR94; ILR1951Bom701
Chagla C.J. 1. By this petn. the petnr. challenges an order of requisition made by Govt. dated 22-11-1949, under Section 6(4)(a), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petn. came before our brother Shah J. & before him the correctness of a decision of our brother Tendolkar J. reported in Jagatchandra v. Province of Bombay, : AIR1950Bom144 was questioned. Shah J. had several other petns. tefore him where the same question was likely to arise, & in order that the matter should be finally settled I directed that the petn. should be placed before a bench, and this petition has now come up before this bench to decide the question, whether, when the Govt. makes a declaration under proviso I to Section 6 (4) that certain premises were or had become vacant, it is competent to the petnr. to go behind that declaration. 2. Section 6 of the Act provides that if any premises situated in a particular area are vacant and whenever any such premises are vacant or become vacant by reason of the landlor...
In Re: Atmaram Shridhar Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom266; (1950)52BOMLR856; ILR1951Bom155
Chagla, C.J. 1. The detenu was arrested on 21-4-1960, and an order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was served upon him on that very date. The grounds ware famished to him on 39.4.1950, and the grounds are that hewas engaged and was likely to be engaged in promoting acts of sabotage on railway and railway property in Greater Bombay. It is clear, by reason of the view we have taken in several cases under Section 491, Criminal P. C., that this is not a ground which would enable the detenu to make a representation to which he is entitled both under the Act and under the Constitution. We have now before us an affidavit of Mr. Chudasama, the Commissioner of Police, dated 80-8-1950. We appreciate the fact that, after our decision was given, Government decided to place all the materials before us so that we should be satisfied that what influenced the detaining authority iu making the order was not any ulterior motive but that ample materials were at the disposal of the detaining aut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›