Mumbai Court March 1952 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.
Ranchhoddas Kalidas and ors. Vs. Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom153; (1952)54BOMLR982; ILR1953Bom271
Gajendragadkar, J.[1] The principal question which this appeal raises for decision is whether the temple of Shree Gokul Nathji at Nadiad is a public charitable temple of the followers of Vallabha cult at Nadiad or whether it is a private temple belonging to the present worshipper, Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji.[2] In the suit from which this appeal arises, the Vaishnav devotees of this temple alleged that the temple is a public charitable temple and claimed certain declarations in regard to the properties belonging to this temple. According to the plaintiffs, the idol of Shree Gokul Nathji is a public idol worshipped by the Vaishnava devotees of the place, and the Maharaja or the Maharani, who may be in management of the temple for the time being, is the trustee of the said idol and the temple in which it is worshipped.[3] Public festivals are held in this temple, like any other Hindu public temple, and it is the right of every Vaishnava follower of the Vallabha cult to take part in s...
Bhagwant Rambhau Khese Vs. Ramchandra Kesho Pathak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom129; (1952)54BOMLR833
Gajendragadkar, J.(1) The short question which this appeal raises is whether a tenant who had been sued in ejectment by his landlord before the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, Bombay Act 57 of 1947, came into force is entitled to the protection of Section 12(3) of the said Act. The landlord had sued the tenant to recover possession of the premises let out to him on the ground that the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent and the tenancy had been duly determined by a notice given by the landlord in that behalf. The defence was that the rent had been regularly paid, that the notice which had been given by the landlord had been subsequently waived by him by accepting rent from the tenant and that the suit was not maintainable without the Rent Controller's certificate. The premises were let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 7 inclusive of electricity charges. The trial Judge found against the defendant on all the pleas made by him. He, howev...
The State Vs. Jayantilal Govinddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom82; (1952)54BOMLR790; ILR1953Bom91
Vyas, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in favour of the original accused persons Jayantilal Govinddas and Chimanlal Vrijlal who were prosecuted for an offence under Section 12, Clause (a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 (Bom. IV of 1887), and convicted and sentenced by the learned Fifth Additional City Magistrate, Ahmedabad.(2) Shortly stated, the facts of the case which gave rise to this prosecution were as follows: On November 15, 1950, Police Sub-Inspector Mishrikhan Pa than attached to the Astodia Police Chowkey received information that accused No. 1 Jayantilal Govinddas was receiving bets on American futures near Adarsh Hindu Hotel situated not far from the entrance to Sankdi Sheri. On receiving that information, the Sub-Inspector called the punter and the 'panchas' and in the presence of the 'panch' searched the person of the punter and gave a marked two rupee note bearing ...
V.B. Godse, Manager, Prabha Mills, Ltd. Vs. R.H. Naick, Inspector, Und ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1952
Reported in: (1953)IILLJ577Bom
ORDERChagla, C.J. 1. The Industrial Court made an award on 21 July 1949 fixing the standard of wages of the employees of the Prabha Mills and also fixing their dearness allowance. Both the wages and the dearness allowance which were being paid by the mills to their employees were increased by this award. The Court also directed that these payments should be made from November 1947 and should be made by August 1949. As the mills failed to make these payments, an application was made to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for an order directing the mills to make the payment, and the order for payment was made by the Additional Resident First Class Magistrate, Viramgam, who is the authority. An appeal was preferred from this order to the Second Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, and the learned Assistant Judge in a very careful and able judgment reviewing all the authorities came to the conclusion that the mills were liable to pay under the Payment of Wages Act and confirmed the order o...
Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Bom145; (1953)55BOMLR861
1. In this summons which is taken out by the defendant it is asked that the leave granted by my brother Tendclkar J. under clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover a certain amount from the defendant under a contract. The offer was made from Bombay to the defendant at Belgaum by letter by the plaintiffs to transport certain logs of teak wood from the Kanara forests to Marmagoa and from Marmagoa to Karachi. The offer of the plaintiffs was accepted by the defendant by their officer's letter posted to Belgaum. It is contended that in those circumstances no part of the cause of action has arisen in Bombay and therefore leave should not have been given. The plaintiffs in para 13 of the plaint say that the said contract was finally arrived at in Bombay when the acceptance of the offer was communicated to and received by the plaintiffs in Bombay. 3. The facts of this case are very simple. The offer was made by post from Bombay to ent...
Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR540
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a suit, under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, commenced by the plaintiffs who were originally nine in number in the Court of the District Judge of Kaira at Nadiad. Out of the nine plaintiffs, only one is surviving, and he is now the sole respondents this appeal, all the rest having died pending this protracted litigation, which began as early as the year 1928.2. The case of the plaintiffs, in substance, was that one Kuberdas, who was a religious teacher and a holy man founded a cult known as Kaivalya or Karunasagar Panth, the principal tenet of which is, that the realization of the Infinite is possible only through the medium of a Guru or spiritual preceptor. Kuberdas received money and lands from his followers and disciples and with this fund he built a temple at Sarsa, Kuberdas by will appointed his principal disciple Narayandas to succeed him on the gadi and Narayandas built another and a bigger t...
A. Vs. B.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR725
[1] This is a suit filed by a Hindu husband against his wife for a declaration that their marriage is null and void, or in the alternative for a decree for divorce under the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947. The parties were married on 12th May 1950, at Bombay according to Hindu Vedic rites. At the date of the marriage, the defendant was sixteen years of age having been born on 16th August 1934. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant did not have at the time of marriage either a vagina or uterus and she still has neither the vagina nor uterus, or to use medical expressions, she has had no development of vaginal cervix, uterine or the genital tract and the internal organs, and, therefore, she is impotent and incapable of having sexual intercourse with any male. The plaintiff also alleges in the plaint that the parents of the defendant practised fraud and deception upon him, as they did not disclose these physical defects of the defendant, which they should have known, as the defendant h...
Hiralal Morarka Vs. Sitaram Manekchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom446; (1952)54BOMLR555
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from an order of Shah J. refusing to set aside an ex parte decree at the instance of defendant 2. The suit was filed on 26-1-1950, and the cause of action was moneys lent and advanced to the two defendants who were described as carrying on business under a partnership name. An ex parte decree was passed against both the defendants on 4-7-1950. Defendant 1 took out a notice of motion on 21-10-1950, to set aside the ex parte decree, and on 16-2-1951, the ex parte decree was set aside as against defendant 1. On 13-3-1951, defendant 1 filed his written statement. On 17-7-1951, defendant 2, who is the appellant before us, took out a notice of motion to set aside the ex parte decree as against him. Shah J. dismissed the notice of motion on 27-7-1951, and hence this appeal.[2] Now, the application to set aside the ex parte decree as far as defendant 2 is concerned is time-barred, and Mr. Bhabha who appears for the appellant concedes it. But his contention is ...
Mahomed Usman Rahimtoola Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom443; (1952)54BOMLR513; ILR1953Bom177
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from an order of Shah J. by which he directed a writ of certiorari to issue against the Labour Appellate Tribunal. [2] There was a dispute between the workers of the Elephant Oil Mills, Ltd., and the mills and this dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, and the Tribunal made its award on 19-10-1950. There was an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal gave its award on 8-2-1951, and the appellant before us, who is a worker of the mills, preferred this petition to this Court alleging that no notice of appeal had been served upon him, that he had not been heard by the Appellate Tribunal, that there was a violation of the rules of natural justice, and therefore, the award of the Appellate Tribunal should be quashed. [3] The learned Judge below upheld the contention of the appellant. He held that he had not been heard by the Appellate Tribunal, and the order that he made was that the award of the Appellate Tribun...
Shyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ramibai Bhagwansing Advani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom445; (1952)54BOMLR517
Chagla, C.J.[1] One Bhagwansingh Advani was the managing trustee of a public charitable trust known as the Basantsingh Amil Dhramada (Chari-ties) Trust. This trust was a member of the defendant co-operative society. The trust advanced a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 to the defendant society. The plaintiffs are the present trustees of the trust and they have filed the present suit to recover the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 from the defendant society. A notice of motion was taken out by the defendants to stay the suit on the ground that under Section 54, Bombay Co-operative Societies Act the dispute could only be adjudicated upon by arbitration as provided by that section. The learned Judge below dismissed the notice of motion. It is from that order that this appeal has been preferred.[2] Now, the contention urged by Mr. Banaji is that within the meaning of Section 54 this is a dispute touching the business of the society between the society and its member. The learned Judge below has taken the view that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »