Mumbai Court January 1953 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.
Prem Narayan Amritlal Varme Vs. Divisional Traffic Manager
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom78; (1953)55BOMLR735; ILR1953Bom1025; (1953)IILLJ334Bom
ORDERFACTS The applicant was an employee of the G. I. P. Railway (respondents). Between 7-3-1949, and 5-5-1949, he was detained by the police under the Public Security Measure's Act and was prevented from discharging his duty. He was reinstated on 29-9-1950, but he was not paid his full wages for the period from 5-5-1949, to 29-9-1950. The applicant applied to the Payment of Wages Authority claiming his full wages for the above period. The Authority ordered that he be paid his full wages amounting to Rs 736-4-0.On appeal by the respondents the District Judge held that the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the question whether the suspension of the applicant was rightful or wrongful and he, therefore) set aside the order passed by the Authority.The applicant applied to the High Court. The application was heard by Chagla C. J., who sent the matter back to the District Judge for decision on merits on 13-12-1951, observing that, in deciding whether the suspension was rightful or wron...
Tolaram Relumal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom347; (1955)57BOMLR366; ILR1953Bom1007
Chagla, C.J.(15) The two accused were convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, for having committed an offence under Section 13(1) of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 1,200 & in default rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The two accused preferred an appeal to this Court and the appeal came before the criminal bench and that bench has referred a question of law that arises out of this appeal to a full bench.(16) The facts briefly are that the two accused on 23-11-1950, received a deposit of Rs. 75 from a prospective tenant and the tenant also paid, according to the case of the prosecution, a sum of Rs. 2,400 as premium. The premises which were to be demised to the tenant consisted of a flat on the third floor of the building, and the division bench has found as a fact that this flat was not ready for occupation. Further, when the deposit was made and when, as alleged by the prosecution, the premium was paid, th...
State Vs. Caulfield Holland Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom70; (1953)55BOMLR768; ILR1953Bom1249; (1953)IILLJ458Bom
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises for decision in this appeal relates to the construction of Section 29, Industrial Disputes Act, (India Act 14 of 1947). This section provides that if any person commits a breach of any term of an award which is binding on him under the Act, he shall on his first conviction therefor be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. The prosecution case was that Caulfield Holland, Ltd., who are a joint stock company incorporated in England end who carry on business at Ballard Estate, Bombay, and Mr. Holland, the Managing Director of the said Company, had committed a breach of an award which was binding on them.The two accused admitted that a breach had been committed, but they pleaded that the breach was inevitable because it was absolutely beyond their financial resources to comply with the provisions of the award. The...
The State Vs. Zaverbhai Amaidas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom371; (1953)55BOMLR387; ILR1954Bom117
Bavdekar, J.(1) Criminal Application for Revision No. 642 of 1952 arises from the admitted transport by the applicant of 7 1/2 Bengali maunds of juwar from his own village of Khanjorili to Mandvi on April 8, 1951. Such a transport without a licence is prohibited by Clause 5 (1) of the Bombay Foodgraius (Regulation of Movement and Sale) Order, 1949. The applicant raised a defence that he was transporting the grain under a permit issued by a Revenue Patel. But it has been found that the Revenue Patel had no power to issue a permit for this transport of the grain. It is not contended before us that that finding is wrong. But the learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the applicant, challenges the conviction of the applicant on two grounds. He says that, in the first instance, in this case the learned Magistrate, who convicted the applicant, was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence, inasmuch as there was no report made by a public officer, as required by Section 11, Essentia...
Hari Shankar Dinanath and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1333
ORDERSinha, C.J.1. By our judgment dated 15.9.1952 we dismissed the two applications under Article 228 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. As a necessary consequence of the dismissal of those applications, we observed that the prosecutions must proceed. At the instance of the petitioners, we certified that the cases involved substantial questions of, law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of India and were fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The application in this case and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 89 of 1952 have been made for the stay of the criminal proceeding now pending in the Court of the trying Magistrate at Hoshangabad. The question is whether we have the power to order the stay of proceedings in the Court below. This order will govern both the Miscellaneous Criminal Cases Nos. 88 and 89 of 1952.3. It should be noted that no appeal has yet been filed in the S...
The State Vs. Vithal Maruti Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom369; (1953)55BOMLR379; ILR1953Bom1242
In an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the High Court can interfere with the finding impeached, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that not only is the offence proved beyond a reasonable doubt but that it is difficult if not impossible to see how a contrary view could be held on the material available in the case.In an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded; but the findings of the trial Court can be reversed 'only for very substantial and compelling reasons.' While applying this test [laid down by the Supreme Court in Surajpal Singh v. The State , it is not enough to satisfy the High Court that the prosecution case is proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike, in an appeal against the order of conviction, the fact that the High Court may come to a different conclusion on the evidence in a pa...
Rangappa Kelavadeppa Vs. Rindawa and Vasangouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom139; (1953)55BOMLR725; ILR1953Bom991
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a second appeal arising from a suit filed by one Rangappa, who claims to be the adopted son of one Kelvadeppa. It appears that this Kelvadeppa had obtained a decree against Venkappa, the father of the plaintiff Rangappa, Rangappa himself and three other sons of Venkappa. The decree was for partition and separate possession of two properties situated in the Badami taluka of the Bijapur District. Kelvadeppa died after filing an application for execution of the decree, and a question arose as to whether his sister, the defendant Rindawa, was entitled to be brought on the record as his legal representative for the purpose of carrying on execution. Rindawa claimed under a will left by her brother; but the genuineness of this will was denied by all the four defendants-judgment-debtors. The question was then tried, and it was held by the executing Court that the will was a genuine one. It appears that the execution proceedings were then carried on by Rindawa.2. Subseque...
The Province of Bombay Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom1; (1953)55BOMLR670; ILR1953Bom1081
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal arising from a suit which had been filed by the Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad in respect of 60 1/2 square yards of public street land which had vested in the Municipality as street land. It appears from the evidence that the Municipality converted the piece of land by its incorporation in meat shops, and the Commissioner thereupon assessed the land to payment of non-agricultural assessment and made an order that the amount of assessment should be recovered.The Municipality filed the suit from which the present appeal arises challenging the assessment and contending that they were, as a matter of fact, not liable to pay the assessment which had been imposed. The learned Assistant Judge, who heard the first appeal, came to the conclusion that the decision of the trial Judge that the land was liable to pay non-agricultural assessment under Section 45 of the Land Revenue Code was a correct decision.The trial Judge had dismissed the suit ho...
Pandu Mari Lote and ors. Vs. Shripati Sadu Lote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom428; (1953)55BOMLR647; ILR1954Bom167
Chagla, C.J. 1. One Sadu Pandu died on 30-5-1914, leaving behind him a widow by the name of Janma. On 25-1-1916, Jamna executed a document relinquishing in favour of the next reversioners of her husband all the property left by her husband. The property consisted of both watan and non-watan lands. The next reversioners were defendant 1 and Sakharam, the father of defendants 2, 3 and 4. On 15-6-1938, Jamna adopted the plaintiff. On 31-1-1946, the plaintiff filed a suit to recover from defendants 1 to 4 the lands belonging to Sadu Pandu in their possession. The trial Court gave a declaration to the plaintiff that he was the validly adopted son of Sadu Pandu, but refused to give him relief with regard to the lands in possession of defendants 1 to 4, holding that there was a valid surrender in their favour by the widow. An appeal was preferred to the District Court. The lower appellate Court took the view that inasmuch as the surrender by the widow comprised not only non-watan lands but al...
Bhikhabhai Nanabhai Patel Vs. Chimanlal Maganlal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom437A; (1953)55BOMLR641
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a second appeal referred to this Full Bench. The facts briefly are that land in question belonged to one Venidas and in 1880 he mortgaged this land for a sum of Rs. 400 to one Kishor-das Jethabhai. Kishordas Jethabhai sub-mortgaged the land to one Shah Chhagan-lal Mulji for Rs. 261, and there was a further sub mortgage on 13-5-188G, for a sum of Rs. 560. The plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal a vises acquired the right of Venidas in this property by a registered document on 8-2-19-15, and he filed the suit for redemption under the Dakkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Defendants 1 to 6 are the representatives of the sub-mortgagee and defendants 7 and 8 are the representatives of Venidas. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court concurred in dismissing the suit.2. Now, in the written statement the contesting defendants alleged that there was a sale-deed executed by defendants 7 and 8 in respect of the equity of redemption of this property and thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »