Mumbai Court May 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.
The Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1951
Reported in: (1951)53BOMLR1003
Mahajan, J.1. The appellants are a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and have got mills at Tilaknagar, District Ahmednagar, in the State of Bombay, for manufacturing sugar. For the purpose of their business, they employ muster labour and contract labour.2. By a notification dated January 8, 1948, published in the Government Gazette, under Section 2(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom. Act XI of 1947), the Provincial Government applied the provisions of the Act to sugar industry with effect from January 12, 1948, A dispute arose between the employees of the appellants including the seasonal and contract labour and the appellants as regards the demand made by the employees for payment of six months' wages as bonus for the year 1947-48, and as the dispute was not resolved by conciliation, the Government of Bombay issued the following notification on April 1, 1949:Whereas an industrial dispute has arisen between the Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, Belapur...
Kusana Karoo Vs. Rajaram Paiku and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ438
ORDERDeo, J.1. This is an application for revision of the appellate judgment of acquittal of the non-applicants of the offences punishable under Sections 211 and 600, Indian Penal Code.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the accused did not make a report against the complainant to the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 2) but they answered certain questions put to them by him during investigations and consequently they cannot, be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 211, Indian Penal Code.3. As regards the offences under Section 500 the t learned Judge has held that the answers in investigation are absolutely privileged and cannot be the subject-matter of the charge for defamation. The learned Judge, who has not referred to any principle or precedent, had probably in mind the rule of English common law according to which a witness in a Court of justice is absolutely privileged as to anything he may say as a witness having reference to the enquiry on which he is call...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›