Mumbai Court September 1952 Judgments
Laxmibai Wamanrao Vs. Wamanrao Govindrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom342; (1953)55BOMLR357; ILR1953Bom1031
Rajadhyaksha, J. (1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and arrears of maintenance at the same rate for three years preceding the institution of the suit.(2) The plaintiff who is the wife was married to the defendant about the year 1920. They lived together for about 15 years. But they had no issue of the marriage. In the year 1930, the defendant married a second wife and from this marriage a daughter was born to the defendant. As the defendant did not have a son, he married a third time In the year 1940 and he got a son from this marriage. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been acting entirely according to the wishes of the third wife and was not treating the plaintiff with the respect and courtesy that was due to her. Inspite of all this she continued to live with the defendant. But for some reason or other, the defendant brought the plaintiff back to her father's house. ...
Tag this Judgment!Satibai and ors. Vs. Vishnibai Kimatrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom280; (1953)55BOMLR242; ILR1953Bom633
Chagla, C.J.(1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as the landlord o certain premises in Karachi for arrears of rent from 8-6-1948, to 22-9-1949, and for a certain amount paid by her for Municipal and oilier taxes for the year 1948 and 1949. The suit is very simple in character, but the complications arise by reason of the fact that Karachi ceased to be a part of India and the parties have migrated to this country and are now residing in Bombay. (2) The facts briefly are that the plaintiff demised the property in suit which is in Karachi, as business premises, to one K. Shewakram by an indenture of lease, dated 21-6-1947. The rent fixed under the lease was Rs. 400 per month, and in the lease there is an express covenant on the part of the lessee that he will pay the rent reserved under the lease. The arrears of rent in respect of which this suit is filed is for the period 8-6-1948, to 22-9-1949, and the defence taken by the defendants, who are the heirs of Shevakra...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pirmohammad Nazafikhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1349
1. This is an appeal filed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1951 acquitting the respondent who was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, for breach of condition No. 5 of the licence issued in form B under the Cenerl Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949.2. It is not disputed that the respondent is a dealer in yarn and was given B class licence under Clause 4, Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949. He had the accounts entered in his register till the end of 29.12.1950. He had dealings in yarn on 20th and 31st December 1950, but failed to maintain the account for these two days in his stock register. He thus contravened the condition No. 5 of the licence granted to him.3. His defence was that he was illiterate and could not make the necessary entries. He used to maintain the registe...
Tag this Judgment!Blanche Fonseca Vs. Jupiter Airways Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom417; (1953)55BOMLR473; ILR1954Bom1
ORDER1. This is a chamber summons for rectification of the register of shareholders of the respondent company by excluding therefrom the name of the applicant in respect of 100 ordinary shares of the said company and also for rectification of the list of contributories by omitting the name of the applicant therefrom.2. It appears that the applicant on 15-7-1946, made an application for 100 shares of the company and paid a sum of Rs. 250 which was payable with the application. On 3-9-1946, these shares were allotted to her by a resolution of the directors of the company and a notice of allotment was given to her by a letter dated 10-9-1946. Thereafter by a letter of 13-9-1946, the applicant repudiated the contract for taking up the shares. This letter has not been produced before me, but it was obviously a letter in which no ground had been given for repudiating the contract for taking up the shares. The company accordingly by its letter of 4-10-1946, asked for the ground on which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Sen and ors. Vs. All India Industrial Disputes (Labour ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom325; (1953)55BOMLR125; ILR1954Bom260; (1953)IILLJ6Bom
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is a petition challenging two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that they had failed to exercise jurisdiction rested in the Tribunal under the law. Petitioner; Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are the employees of the second respondent company, and petitioner No. 3 was up to October 1951 also in the employment of the second respondent company. It appears that some of the employees of the Ford Motor Co. have formed a union to protect their interests, and the petition is filed by the five petitioners on behalf of themselves and all other workmen employed by the second respondent company. This union raised an industrial dispute in 1946. It was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal which consisted of Mr. Kamerkar gave its award on 5-5-1913, and the award lasted till 16-5-1S49. There was another dispute between the workmen of the Ford Motor Co. and the company again in September 1949 and it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by Government un...
Tag this Judgment!State Govt. Vs. Rammilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1513
1. The respondent Rammilal was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- by the First Class Magistrate, Jabalpur, under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary-Powers) Act, 1946 for contravention cf Clauses 14 and 15, C.P. and Berar Sugar Control Order, 1949; but in appeal he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, has now appealed against his acquittal.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. The appellant, who did not hold a licence for the sale of sugar, sold one 'pao' of 'batashas' on 25.5.1950 to Narbad (P.W. 5) for -/10/-, although the controlled rate, as-fixed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, on 1.12.1949 was Rs. 1/4/- per seer. The respondent's version was that he had sold for -/5/-betel leaves and melon to Janglaji (P.W. 5), constable, batashas for -/5/- to Narbad who-was accompanied by the constable and that he had given the change of -/6/- to Narbad who had presented to him a rupee note which he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Ratanchand Khimchand Motishaw
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom285; (1953)55BOMLR236; ILR1953Bom623
Chagla, C.J. (1) This appeal raises a very interesting and important question as to the construction of Section 86F, Companies Act. The facts are proved and not disputed. The respondent was a director of the Walchandnagar Industries, Ltd. In June 1951 he entered into a contract with the company for the supply of one tin of ghee, and the question that arises is whether by reason of the respondent entering into this contract he has ceased to be a director of the company. Section 86F imposes a personal disability upon a director of the company and the disability is that a director of the company, or the firm of which he is a partner or any partner of such firm, or the private company of which he is a member or director is precluded from entering into any contracts for the sale, purchase or supply of goods and materials with the company. The disqualification is not absolute, because the section provides that with the consent of the directors, a director can enter into contracts which are p...
Tag this Judgment!Tarachand Kevalram Vs. Sikri Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom290; (1953)55BOMLR231; ILR1953Bom717
Chagla, C.J. (1) A very interesting question under the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in this appeal, and the facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated. One Harirarn, who is a finance broker approached the plaintiff on 4-2-1949, representing to him that a loan of Rs. 5,000 was required by the defendants, and the plaintiff's ease was that on that representation he gave a bearer cheque fpr that amount to Hariram. This cheque was cashed by Hariram on the following day, i.e., 5-2-1949. On 11-2-1949, Hariram gave to the plaintiff a hundi drawn by the defendants which was an incomplete document, in that the necessary parts of the document were not filled in by the defendants themselves, and this hundi was brought by Hariram and given to the plaintiff in consideration of the loan of Rs. 5,000 which the plaintiff had advanced on 4-2-1949. The plaintiff filled in the blanks in this hundi and made this incomplete document into a negotiable instrument, the makers of which were the...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam and ors. Vs. Pandurang Raghunath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom315; (1953)55BOMLR286; ILR1953Bom727
(1) The short question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether as permanent tenants of the land the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgage executed by the landlord in respect of the said land. The properties mortgaged consist of Section No. 244, Pot Hissa Nos. 1 to 5, situated at Mouje Shiroda. Three mortgages have been created in respect of this property in 1863, 1865 and 1367 respectively in favour of the defendants' predecessors-in-title. It is common ground that the mortgagors have left no heirs and their line has become extinct. The plaintiff's claim to be permanent tenants on the ground that they have been on these lands since long before 1863. In the present suit they claimed to redeem the three mortgages and asked for accounts under the provisions o Section 15D, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The defendants resisted their claim on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the permanent tenants of the land as claimed by them and, even if they were, they we...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Varerkar Vs. All India Ground-nut Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom270; (1953)55BOMLR312
Tendolkar, J.(1) This is a petition for winding up of a company filed by the Registrar of Companies under Section 166(aa) with the previous sanction of the State Government.(2) The ease made out in the petition is that the company had as of November 30, 1949, a paid-up capital of Rs. 41,923 and that the accounts of the company for the year ending November 30, 1943, showed that it had incurred a loss of Rs. 73,821-13-2. The company was, therefore, insolvent and unable to pay its debts. It is on these facts that the State Government accorded its sanction to the presentation of this petition by the Registrar. That sanction was given on 6-11-1950, but the petition was not presented until 23-6-1952. In the interval the company had published the balance-sheets for two subsequent years The balance-sheet for the year ending with 30-11-1950, has been dealt with at some length in the petition, but the net result shown by this balance-sheet is an ultimate loss of Rs. 1,04,593-7-4. The petition th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »