Mumbai Court February 1951 Judgments
Damodar Ganesh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom459; (1951)53BOMLR739; 1953CriLJ37
Rajadhyaksha, J. 1. These applications and appeal No. 704 of 1950 have been made by petitioners who have been convicted under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XXIII [23] of 1932. 2. The facts in all cases are almost identical, and there is no dispute about them. In August 1950, there was a dispute between the Bombay Millowners Association on the one hand and the employees of the various member mills on the other, with respect to the bonus for the year1949. The matter was taken to the Industrial Court, Bombay, and it gave an award on 7th July1950. Against that award the Millowners Association filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on 9th August 1950. This Tribunal was constituted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act of 1950. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the employees of the various mills commenced a strike on 14th August 1950. On 16th August the petitioners went near the mills, and having posted themselves near the gate...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbasappa Mahadevappa Vs. Neelkanthappa Shivappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom136; (1951)53BOMLR371; ILR1951Bom393
Chagla, C.J.1. A money decree was passed in favour of the applt. who is the D. H. on 28-2-1945. He applied for execution of his decree on 15-2-1947. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, Act XXVIII (28) of 1939, was applied to Chikodi where the Ct. passed this decree on 1-5-1945, & under that Act the last date for making an appln. to the Board set up under that Act waa 80-10-1945. Before the executing Ct. the J. D. contended that as no appln. for the adjustment of his debt had been made by the creditor, the debt was extinguished & execution proceedings could not lie in respect of the decree. The executing Ct. framed two issues as to whether the J. D.'s debts exceeded Rs. 15,000 & whether he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. On the first issue it held in favour of the D. H. With regard to the second issue it held in favour of the D. H holding that the J. D. was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. From that decision an appeal was preferred to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Alarakhia Somijee Vs. Collector of Nasik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom131; (1951)53BOMLR369; ILR1952Bom79
Chagla, C.J.1. By this petn. the petnr. challenges an order of requisition made on 24-8-1950, by the Collector of Nasik. The ground for requisi-tioning the premises of the petnr., who was a tenant of these premises, was that they had not been occupied for residential purposes for a continuous period of six months by the tenant. The main ground on which the order is challenged is that it is a quasi-judicial order that the petnr. was not heard in his defence & that in the inquiry contemplated by Section 5(2) the rules of natural justice were not observed.2. Now, the main question that falls for deter-mination is whether the order which is made under Section 5 (1) is a judicial or a quasi-judicial order. Section 5 (2) provides:'Where any building or part thereof ia to be requisitioned under Sub-section (1), the State Govt. shall make such enquiry as it deems fit & make a declaration in the order of requisition that the owner, the landlord or the tenant,as the case may be, has not actually...
Tag this Judgment!Akbaralli Tayaballi Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom145; (1951)53BOMLR553; ILR1952Bom73
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the original accused 1, who has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, Girgaum, Bombay, under Section 2 (1), Bombay Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) & the Essential Commodities & Cattle (Control) (Enhancement of Penalties) Act, 1947, (Act No. XXXVI [36] of 1947), read with Section 4, Bombay Essential Commodities & Cattle (Control) Act, 1946, (Act No. XXII [22] of 1946) read with Notification No. 129-IP (5), dated 6-7-1946, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the above mentioned Act (No. XXII [22] of 1946).2. The gravamen of the offence alleged against accused l is that on 7-6-1949, he and accused 2 sold to a bogus customer, one Amritlal Girdharilal Mehta, 100 bags of pure cement at Rs. 9 per bag without having authority from the Cement Adviser to the Govt. of India or the Regional Cement Adviser, Bombay. Notification No. 129-IP (5), dated 6 7-1946, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4, Bombay Essential Commodities a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Shankar Vs. Rajaram Bapu Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom125; (1951)53BOMLR398; ILR1952Bom65
Chagla, C.J.1. The applt. before us obtained a money decree in the Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge's Ct. at Sholapur. This decree was transferred to the Ct. of Nyayadhish, Akalkot. The darkhast for the execution of the decree was presented on 9-6-1945, & it was dismissed by the Dist. J. at Akalkot, It is from that order that this appeal is preferred.2. The J. D. was a foreigner quae the Ct. at Sholapur which passed the decree, & his contention was that as he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of that Ct. the Sholapur Ct. was not a competent Ct. as far as Akalkot was concerned & therefore the Akalkot Ct. could not execute a foreign judgment within the meaning of Section 13 Civil P.C. This contention was upheld by the Dist. J. Akalkot. Mr. Chitale before us controverts both the findings of the Ct. below.3. His first contention is that inasmuch as Akalkot has now merged with the State of Bombay the J. D. is no longer a foreigner quae the Sholapur Ct. & therefore the Sholapur Ct. w...
Tag this Judgment!Shidvirappa Gurusatappa Chinvar and ors. Vs. Shivalingappa Basalingapp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom137; (1951)53BOMLR539; ILR1952Bom54
Chagla, C.J.1. The pltf. filed a suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordirate Judge, Mudhol State, alleging that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mudhol State Agriculturists' Relief Act & contending that a certain transaction he had entered into with the defts. on 12-8-1937, although ostensibly a sale, was in reality a mortgage & asking for accounts of this mortgage transaction. The trial Court held that the pltf. was not an agriculturist & dismissed his suit. In appeal the learned Dist. J. of Mudhol took a contrary view & held that the pltf. was an agriculturist & remanded the suit to the trial Court for disposal. It is from this decision that this appeal is preferred, & as the matter involved consideration of a rather important question of law, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench.1a. The Mudhol State Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force on 1-11-1940, & the suit was filed on 20-9-1943. The suit is under Section 14 of that Act which enables an ag...
Tag this Judgment!Nimalchand Gulabsa and ors. Vs. Madanlal Jagannath Shet and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom30; (1951)53BOMLR810; ILR1952Bom40
Chagla, C.J. [1] This Letters Patent appeal is preferred against a judgment of Mr. Justice Shah and the few facts that are necessary to be stated are that two survey numbers, 21 and 71. belonged to one Buda Yanjari. Buda Vanjari mortgaged these two survey numbers to the defendants on June 4,1919. Plaintiffs purchased the equity of redemption of 8. No, 21 in 1923. Defendants filed a suit, being suit NO. 117 of 1826, to enforce their mortgage and they obtained a mortgage decree. In execution of tbeit decree they filed a darkhast in 1938, At that time the sum due to them under the decree was Rs. 6,181. An agreement was arrived at while that darkhast was pending on July 14, 1940, between the plaintiffs and the defendants. We will consider the particular terms of this agreement and the effect of it later. Pursuant to that agreement, possession of Section No. 21 was given to the defendants and the plaintiffs in their turn executed a rent-note in favour of the defendantsagreeing to pay Rs. 10...
Tag this Judgment!Dasharathrao Ganpatrao Vs. Ramchandrarao Vinayakrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom141; (1951)53BOMLR575; ILR1952Bom31
Gajendragadkar, J.1. After dealing with certain points not material to this report his Lord-ship proceeded.] In support of his contention that the pltfs. cannot claim a share by partition in the properties in suit Mr. Abhyankar has raised an interesting point under Hindu law. He con-cedes that Bhaskarrao who is the common ancestor of the parties in the present suit is within four degrees in ascent from the pltfs. The pedigree shows that Bhaskarrao's son was Narayanrao, Narayanrao's son was Vinayakrao, & the pltfs. are Vinayakrao's sons. Mr. Abhyankar, however, points out that the defts. against whom the present claim has been made are beyond four degrees in descent from Bhaskarrao. That again is true; because according to the same pedigree Bhaskar-rao's eldest son was Ramchandrarao, Ramchan-drarao's son was Ballalrao, Ballalrao's eldest son was Ganpatrao, & the two defts. for whom Mr. Abyankar appears are the sons of Ganpatrao. Mr. Abhyankar's contention is that it is a rule of Hindu l...
Tag this Judgment!G. Claridge and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom100; (1951)53BOMLR373; ILR1952Bom19; (1951)IILLJ1Bom
ORDERShah, J.1. This is a petition filed by G. Claridge & Co., Ltd., Bombay for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Industrial Tribunal appointed by the State of Bombay under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV [14] of 1947, and against the State of Bombay and two employees of the petitioners who were impleaded on behalf of themselves and all other persona interested in deriving benefit under awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950. made by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners have prayed that this Court do call for records and proceedings of the Industrial Tribunal and do quash the orders and awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950, in so far as they relate to hours of work and 'payment for overtime.' Relevant averments made in the petition may be shortly stated.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1918, having their registered office in Bombay. The Government of Bombay by their order...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Annappa Vs. Subraya Timmaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom127; (1951)53BOMLR363; ILR1951Bom692
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Bavdekar J. who dismissed the second appeal against the decision of thelearned Dist. J., Kanara, who in his turn diamissed the appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge at Sirsi dismiaaing the pltf.'s suit.2. The pltf. claimed that deft. 1 was the chalgeni tenant of his, that he had served upon deft. 1a notice terminating the tenancy on 20-12-1942, & that he was entitled to possession of the suit property from deft. 1. The pltf. also claimed arrearsof the rent & costs.3. The defences taken up by deft. 1 were that there was an oral agreement between his deceased brother & the pltf. to lease the suit properties aswell as other properties at mulgeni, that in pursuance of the said agreement his brother hadmigrated with his family to cultivate the suit properties & that the mulgeni agreement waswritten on 22 2-1915, in respect of both the bagayat & the paddy lands but that subsequently Narasinha had changed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›