Mumbai Court January 1951 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.
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Vs. Bhaidas Pranjivandas and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom158; (1951)53BOMLR381
Shah, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Hong-kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, a banking company, which has its registered office in Bombay, for the following relief;-that the Court do issue a writ of prohibition against the resps. prohibiting them from continuing the proceedings by making an application under Section 20, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, or otherwise howsoever executing or enforcing or attempting to execute or enforce the award.2. The petition was filed against two persons, Bhaidas Pranjivandas Dalai & Narayan Dharmaji Todankar, who were impleaded on behalf of themselves & all other employees of the petitioners employed at the Bombay branch establishment & interested or claiming the benefits of the award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) dated 31-7-1960.3. The material averments made in the petition may be shortly stated. By a Notification dated 13-6-1949, the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by 8. 7, Industrial Di...
Atau Raheman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ580
ORDER1. The petitioner is the son of one Niyamat (son of Makdum Bux) who is at present detained in police custody at Nagpur. It would appear that the petitioner has made a petition to this Court under Section 491, Criminal P.C., for the release of Niyamat and that an order has bean passed by this Court (Misc. or. case No. 13/51) stay it g she removal of Niyamat out of the jurisdiction of this Court till the disposal of that application.2. The reason why the applicant is detained is that having been convicted of an offence under Section 5, Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act by a Magistrate Second Class, on 24.11.1950, he has been arrested under Section 7 of that Act with a view to being deported from India. The petitioner states that Niyamat after being arrested on 8.1.1951 was taken to the borders of India but was again brought back to Nagpur on 17.1.1951 and is since then in police custody. Why Niyamat was brought back to Nagpur after being taken to the borders of India has not been e...
The State Vs. Ramniklal N. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom411; (1951)53BOMLR545; ILR1952Bom6
Vyas J.1. This is a revision application by the Government of the State of Bombay for the setting aside of the order of discharge passed by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Surat, on 9-1-1950. By that order, the learned Magistrate discharged the opponent accused Ramniklal N. Joshi, who was prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV [24] of 1946) on account of an alleged breach by him of the provisions of Clause 3A (1) of the Essential Articles Restricted Acquisition and Possession Order, 1943. A revision application against the said discharge was made in the High Court by the State of Bombay, but the High Court made the following order on 18-5-1950: 'Papers to be returned to the appellant with a direction that he may present them to the Sessions Court, Surat.' A revision application was then filed by the State in the Court of Session at Surat. The Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, dismissed it, holding it to be time-barred. He observed that i...
Soniram Raghushet and ors. Vs. Dwarkabai Shridharshet and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom94; (1951)53BOMLR325; ILR1951Bom679
Bhagwati, J.1. His Lordship set out the facts & rejected the first contention of the defts. The judgment then proceeded; ] The next contention urged by him was that in any event the partition in regard to the agricultural lands was saved by the proviso to S. 2, Bombay Act XVII [17] of 1942. We have already adverted to the circumstances under which the Bombay Act XVII [17] of 1942 came to be passed. The Hindu Women's Eight to Property Act, 1937, & the Hindu Women's Right to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938, purported to give better rights to women to property in general. But the F. G. held that the said Acts did not operate to give them better rights in respect of agricultural lands. Several transactions had already taken place in the Province of Bombay on the basis that women had acquired better rights under the said Acts in the case of agricultural lands as well as other kinds of properties & these transactions were invalidated by reason of the judgment of the P. G. Necessity, therefore...
Nanalal Bhogilal and anr. Vs. Ambalal Somnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom426; (1951)53BOMLR586; ILR1952Bom1
Dixit, J.1. This is a second appeal in execution which raises an interesting question of jurisdiction.2. The decree sought to be executed was passed on 5-10-1945. It was a decree by consent. The suit in which the decree was passed was suit No. 496 of 1942 filed by one Raval Goculeshwar Maganlal in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad. The suit was to enforce a mortgage executed in his favour on 6-5-1932, by two defts., who are father & son, & who are appellants in the present appeal. In the suit was also another party as deft. 3, who is the respondent to the present appeal. Defts. 1 & 2 effected three mortgages, subsequent to the first mortgage in favour of deft. 3 & those three mortgages are dated 16-12-1932, 27-11-1933 & 17- 5-1938. The mortgage in favour of the plff. was one in order to secure a sum of Rs. 1,200 & the mortgages in favour of deft. 3 were respectively to secure Rs. 1,300, Rs. 1,500 & Rs. 4,000. The mortgage in favour of the plff. was one with...
Shankarlal Ramratan Shet Vs. Pandharinath Vishnu Phatak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom385; (1951)53BOMLR319; ILR1951Bom670
Bhagwati, J. 1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Asst. Judge, Jalgaon, allowing the appeal against the decision of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Jalgaon. 2. The pltf. is the owner of a house bearing City Survey No. 1991 which consisted of business premises. A lease for a period of about five years expiring on 4-11-1945, was granted by the pltf. to the deft. The deft. however, continued in possession of the suit premises even after the expiration of the period of the lease. A two-thirds portion of the suit premises had been requisitioned by the Govt. & a one-third portion was in the possession of the deft. On 18-6-1946, the pltf. filed a suit for possession of the suit premises consisting of one-third of the house in the actual possession of the deft. basing his claim for possession on the ground that he required the suit premises for his own use & occupation. This claim of the pltf. was resisted by the deft. who contended that the pltf. did ...
The Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Gunvantrai Maneklal and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom134; (1952)54BOMLR48; ILR1952Bom311
Bhagwati, J.[1] This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad who allowed the appeal against the decision of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), at Ahmedabad, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff is the owner of S. Nos. 1266, 1267 and 1268, Municipal Census Nos. 830 1-2-3.4 and 5 situated at Khadia, Ahmedabad, The Ahmedabad Borough Municipality wanted to acquire certain portions of these S. Nos. as coming within the regular line of public street and there was correspondence between the plaintiff and the Municipality in regard to the plaintiff's intention to build on these S. Nos. and the permission which he asked for from the Municipality to carry out the construction work. The Municipality refused that permission to the plaintiff stating that those S. Nos. were within the regular line of public street. The plaintiff then asked the Municipality to acquire these S. Nos. What was, however, done by the Municipality was to ask the Government to...
Heman Santlal Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom121; (1951)53BOMLR355; ILR1951Bom656
Chagla, C.J.1. A petn. was presented before Tendolkar J. by one Heman Santlal Alreja alleging that he was a sub-tenant of certain premises & that Govt. on 29-5-1950, had issued an order under Section 6(4)(a), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, requisitioning the premises of which he was a sub-tenant, & that the order passed by Govt. was void because according to him Section 6 (4) (a) of the Act was void as contravening the provisions of the Constitution. As the question raised was of considerable importance & as several other petns. were pending before Tondolkar J. which raised the same question, Tendolker J. refd. the matter to a D. B. & in doing so the learned Judge raised several questions for our decision. As we shall presently point out, we propose to decide only those questions which directly arise from the facts of this particular petn. It is always inadvisable to travel outside the facts of a particular case & express hypothetical opinions which may only embarrass Judges who ma...
Bhalchandra Laxman and ors. Vs. Balkrishna Narayan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom162; (1952)54BOMLR52; ILR1952Bom317
Bhagwati, J.[1]. These two first appeals are filed against at the judgment of the learned 2nd Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Kolhapur who decreed the plaintiff's suit. One Madhav Narayan Potnis died in the year 1904 leaving him surviving his two widows, one Radhabai and one Gangabai. Radhabai was the senior widow. Prior to her death in 1927, Radhabai adopted one Chandrashekhar as a son to her husband, Madhav. Chandrashekhar also died unmarried in the year 1929. The estate of Madhav thereupon devolved upon Gangabai, the junior widow, not as the mother of the deceased Chandrashekhar but as the widow of & gotraja sapinda, she being in the position of the step mother of Chandrashekhar. Gangabai in her turn adopted Balkrishna, the plaintiff, on 14-2-1939, as a son to her deceased husband Madhav. This suit was filed on 23-3-1942, by the plaintiff, Balkrishna, for possession of the properties belonging to the estate of Madhav and for future means profits and costs of the suit.[2] Ther...
Raja Kulkarni Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom105; (1951)53BOMLR333; ILR1951Bom318
Bavdekar, J.1. The applts. in these three appeals are the president & the secretaries of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, a union of the textile workers in Bombay registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. There are two other unions with which we will be concerned in the present appeals. They are, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which has been registered as a representative union of the textile workers in Bombay under the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (Bom. XI [11] of 1947), & the Girni Kamgar Union. It appears from the evidence that towards the end of 1949 there was a disputebetween the textile workers & the Millownera' Assocn. with regard to bonus claimed by the former for the year 1949 to make up as they put it the deficit in the living wage & in order toobtain an adequate share in the profits of the industry. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which made an award after hearing asthe representatives of labour the Rashtriya Mill Mazoor ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›