Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom90; (1952)54BOMLR805; ILR1953Bom138
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is a reference made to this Court by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, and the reference comes to be made under the following circumstances. The accused is the owner of an open site bearing Nos. 103 and 104 in Shivaji Nagar, Poona. He has let out the land to members of wandering tribes and these wandering tribes have erected small huts on this land. These huts number about 157 and about 706 people reside in these huts. The Poona Municipal Corporation issued a notice upon the applicant calling upon him to build six latrines and sinks and bathrooms and arrange drainage within sixty days. The accused failed to comply with the requisitions contained in the notice. Thereupon he was prosecuted under Rule 11(1) (a) under Chapter XIX of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, and he was convicted by the Magistrate and fined Rs. 30. The Additional Sessions Judge has made a reference to us pointing out that in his opinion the conviction was bad and the order sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1953)IILLJ17Bom
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate writ, order or direction against the authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, who is the first respondent, in respect of an order passed by the first respondent, and also Rs. 10 for advocate's fees, and As. 8 for court-fee. The matter arises in this way. The petitioners, Messrs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. are the proprietors of the Times of India Press. The second respondent was at all material times one of their employees. On 6 March, 1948, an agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the Times of India Indian Employees' Union, and certain terms and conditions of employment and service were agreed upon between the parties. One of such terms related to the dearness allowance payable to the employees. in the month of February, 1951, the said union, on behalf of the second respondent and other employees, made certain demands, one of which related to dearness allowance. Conciliation proceedings thereafter took place but,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom170; (1952)54BOMLR927; ILR1953Bom200
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a decree of ejectment passed by the learned City Civil Judge Mr. K.M. Vakil. It would appear that the defendants became tenants of flat No. 4 and garage No. 6 in a building known as 'Roshera'. This building was owned by a private individual. But in January 1948 the property was purchased by the Union of India. In May 1949 the Union of India served upon the defendants a notice to quit, and as the defendants failed to give possession, the suit was filed from which this appeal arises.2. The defendants sought protection of the Rent Restriction Act. The answer given to that plea by the plaintiff was that under Section 4, Rent, Restriction Act, the Union Government 'was exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the defendants could not claim the protection of the Act. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge, who in a well-considered judgment considered the various pleas advanced by the defendants and decided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom85; (1952)54BOMLR795
Bavdekar, J.(1) The appellant has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, of an offence under Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a line of Rs. 1,000, in default simple imprisonment for three months. (2) Most of the facts in this case are not in dispute. It appears from the evidence that Messrs. Tootal Broadhurst Lee & Co. are the holders of a registered trade mark 'Tootal' and they have been manufacturing and selling with this trade mark among others woven undervests in the Indian market up to 1944. They seem to have stopped sending out these goods to India afterwards; out there was some evidence that in the year 1948 some English company in Bombay had imported a few undervests of Messrs. Tootal Broadhurst Lee & Co. It is not in dispute that the appellant in the present case purchased from one Fopatlal Ghelabhai & Co. respectable wholesale merchants of Bombay, undervests in bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom71; (1952)54BOMLR841; ILR1953Bom134
ORDER(1) This revision application raises a short but rather interesting question as to the competency of a district local board to levy octroi duty. The petitioner sent certain goods from Sawantwadi to Kunkeri and the district local board of Ratnagiri levied octroi duty on these goods when they entered Kunkeri. Kun-Keri is in the Ratnagiri District and after merger Sawantwadi has also become part of the Ratnagiri District. The plaintiff filed a Small Cause Court suit for recovery of the amount which he had paid under protest as octroi duty and the Small Cause Court Judge dismissed the suit holding that the duty had been properly levied. It is from that decision that this revision application is preferred. (2) Now, the duty has been levied under rules framed by the District Local Board of Ratnagiri and in these rules 'octroi' is defined as a tax on goods brought within the octroi limits for the purpose of consumption, use or trade therein, and 'octroi limits' is defined as the whole of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom133; (1952)54BOMLR922; ILR1953Bom191
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is a petition by a dismissed employee of the Surat Municipal Borough complaining that the decision given by the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal was without jurisdiction and asking us to set right that decision by a prerogative writ. The facts briefly are that the petitioner joined the Surat Municipal Borough on. November 4, 1949. There was a dispute between the Municipality and its workmen which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal on May 15, 1950. While that dispute was pending before the Tribunal, the Surat Municipal Borough dismissed the petitioner. An application was made by the petitioner under Section 33A to the Tribunal complaining against his dismissal by the Surat Municipal Borough. The Tribunal' came to the conclusion that the Surat Municipal Borough was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. There was an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom164; (1952)54BOMLR997; ILR1953Bom402
Rajadhyaksha, J.[1] This is an appeal against an order passed by the Compensation Officer, Bombay and the Bombay Suburban District, in respect of certain premises which were requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.[2] It appears that certain premises were, according to information received by Government, un-authorisedly occupied by Mr. Teheramani since March 1943. The Government therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6, Bombay Laud Requisition Act of 1948, requisitioned those premises by an order dated 10th November 1948. These premises were then allotted to one Shri Chaturbhuj Hotchand by an order of the same date. As the unauthorised occupant did not vacate the premises, the order was enforced by breaking open the lock on 27th November 1948. The applicants-landlords in whose name the property stood put in a claim for compensation at RS. 60 per month. This claim was decreed by the Compensation Officer who considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom330; (1953)55BOMLR220
Rajadhyaksha, J.(1) This is a reference made to us by the learned District Judge of Ahmednagar with regard to the validity of the transfer of a certain suit pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, to the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The point formulated by the learned District Judge is as follows :'Whether a suit instituted, for reliefs under Sections 10A and 15D, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in respect of a transaction evidenced by a sale-deed of a date prior to 1-1-1927, by a plaintiff residing in an area for which a Board was established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1939 before 1-2-1947, can be transferred under Section 19 (1), Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1947 (the other conditions mentioned in the sub-section being existent)?'This point came before the learned District Judge on a reference made to him by the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief A...
Tag this Judgment!