Mumbai Court October 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.
Burhanpur National Textile Workers' Union Vs. Labour Appellate Tribuna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1953
Reported in: (1955)IILLJ220Bom
ORDERHidayatullah, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the Burhanpur National Textile Workers' Union, Burhanpur, district Nimar. The writ is sought against the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Bombay; the provincial industrial court at Nagpur; Sri P.K. Sen, Registrar of Trade Unions, Nagpur; the Burhanpur Tapti Mills, Ltd. Burhanpur; Tapti Mill Majdoor Sangh, Burhanpur, and the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The petitioner submits that it is a registered union under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, in the local area of Burhanpur and is the representative of the employees of the Burhanpur Tapti Mills, Ltd. Burhanpur. On 14 March 1951 the State Government issued a notification fixing the limit of 20 per cent, for recognizing a union as representative of the employees of the Burhanpur Tapti Mills, Ltd. The petitioner thereupon applied to the third respondent on 20 April 1951 for recognition. An enquiry was...
State Vs. Bharat Shankar Tapkir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom306; (1954)56BOMLR245
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poona, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted Bharat Shankar Tapkir, original accused, of an offence under Section 4(1) (c), Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act.2. The facts of the case which gave rise to the prosecution of the accused may now briefly be stated. Raghunath Jagannath Joglekar, who is the Food Inspector, was on duty on 24th July, 1951. At about 8-30 in the morning on that date he saw the accused going along on a bicycle. On the handle of the bicycle there was a charwi, whose capacity was three seers. In that charwi there was milk and the quantity of milk was about one seer.On the same bicycle there was also another pot. There was milk therein also, and the quantity of that milk was about a seer and a half. Then on the carrier of the bicycle there was a brass pot with a capacity of seven seers. That pot was brimful with milk. The Pood Inspector examined ...
Purshottamdas Hassaram Sabnani Vs. Impex (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom309; (1954)56BOMLR214; ILR1954Bom602
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs. 2,008-14-0 being thedifference between the preferential custom duty on textile goods of British manufacture and similar goods of non-British manufacture which he alleges he had to pay in clearing the contract goods after their arrival in the Port of Bombay, This amount he claimed as damages on the footing of a breach of warranty by the defendants. 2. The question that arises 'in limine' is whether the suit is barred by limitation. . The contract of sale is dated 21 September, 1948, and the seller is the defendant and the purchaser is the plaintiff and the goods that were sold were printed cotton haircord which were described as of U. K. origin. The shipment was October/November 1948 and the contract was a C. I. P. contract. The payment was to be made by a confirmed and unequivocal letter of credit to be opened by the purchaser in favour of the British suppliers Messrs. Michael Settons' Sons an...
In Re: Azgaralli Nazaralli Singaporewalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom327; (1954)56BOMLR199; ILR1954Bom763
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two appeals, one an acquittal appeal & one a conviction appeal. The appeals arose from a case tried by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, in which five persons, accused No. 1, a mehta in the employment of a firm called Messrs. M.M. Baxabhoy & Co., accused No. 2, who is their manager, and accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are the Receivers of the properties of the firm in litigation in regard to it, were charged with offences under Section 161 read with Section 116 & further read either with Section 109 or Section 114, Penal Code for offering to Jibhai Chhotalal Barot, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the C. I. D., a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for his showing favour to the accused and to Messrs. M.M. Baxabhoy & Co. in the exercise of his official functions. The conviction appeal is by accused No. 2. and the acquittal appeal is, of course, by th...
Laxminarayan Devastan and ors. Vs. Khanderao Yeshwantrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom446; (1954)56BOMLR232; ILR1954Bom704
1. One Khanderao Yeshwantrao Chandrachud (hereinafter referred to as Khanderao) filed Special Suit No. 39 of 1945 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ahmed-nagar against Shri Laxminarayan Devasthan, Poona, and its managers for a declaration that the properties mentioned in para. 1 of the plaint were Saranjam properties belonging to the plaintiff--Khanderao-- and the same were not liable to be sold in execution of the decree in Suit No. 21 of 1933. Suit No. 39 of 1945 was dismissed by the Civil Judge with costs on February 18, 1947. Shri Laxminarayan Devasthan, Poona, thereafter filed Darkhast No. 43 of 1947 for enforcement of the decree for costs against Khanderao, and certain properties belonging to the latter were attached and sold. The sale was confirmed and the sale proceeds were received by the Court.In the meanwhile one Gokuldas Umedram who had filed Special Suit No. 1502 of 1933 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Poona against Sada-shivrao and Yeshwantrao,...
In Re: Azgaralli Nazaralli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ952
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two appeals, one an acquittal appeal & one a conviction appeal. The appeals arose from a case tried by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, in which five persons, accused No. 1, a mehta in the employment of a firm called Messrs. M. M. Baxabhoy & Co., accused No. 2, who is their manager, and accused Nos. 3,4 and 5, who are the Receivers of the properties of the firm instigation in regard to it, were charged with offences under Section 161 read with Section 116 & further read either with Section 109 or Section 114, Penal Code for offering to Jibhai Chhotalal Barot, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the C. I. D., a sum of Rs, 1,25,000 as illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for his showing favour to the accused and to Messrs. M. M. Baxabhoy & Co. in the exercise of his official functions. The conviction appeal is by accused No. 2, and the acquittal appeal is, of course, by th...
Mr. Ziakh Vs. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1953
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ281Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Desai dismissing a petition for a writ of cirtiorari against the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent company. An appeal was pending in the Labour Appellate Tribunal in respect of certain disputes in which the petitioner was concerned and pending that appeal the first respondent wanted to dismiss, the appellant from its service. It thereupon applied to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act and the Tribunal gave permission to the first respondent company to dismiss the petitioner. On that the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the first respondent company. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal granting permission to the first respondent company to dismiss the petitioner from its service.2. The charge against the petitioner was that he wilfully slowed down t...
Balraj S. Kapoor Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom365; (1954)56BOMLR184; ILR1954Bom1007
ORDER1. This is an application by a surety and it raises a question which arises not infrequently for decision and is, therefore, of some importance.2. One Shivraj S. Kapoor was arrested at about 9-30 p.m. on 27-9-1951, in connection with an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1849. I am told the offence was one under Section 65(a) of the Act.Upon the applicant standing a surety for the accused for his appearance in the Court of law, Shivraj S. Kapoor was granted bail and was released. The bond executed by the applicant was lor a sum of Rs. 20,000. The obligation undertaken by the surety was to the effect that the accused would appear in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate or in the Court of any other Magistrate to which the case might be transferred on 28-9-1051, or on such other days that he might he thereafter required to attend to answer further to the charge pending against him until the case was finally disposed of by the Presidency Magistrate trying the case.On 8-2-1952,...
Rama Appa Patil Vs. Sakhu Dattu Gharal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom315; (1954)56BOMLR227; ILR1954Bom1107
1. The pltf., sister of one one Babu Vithu --deceased--filed Suit No. 22 of 1948 for possession of the properties of Babu Vithu from the defendants who were his divided agnates. It was the plaintiff's case that Babu Vithu died in the year 1931, that he left him surviving his widow Mohana, that Mohana remarried some time in the year 1937 and had thereafter disappeared and therefore she must be regarded as civilly dead to the family of Babu Vithu and that the plaintiff as the sister of Babu Vithu inherited his property and was entitled to obtain possession of the property from the defendants. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kagal, which at the date of the institution of the suit was in the Kolhapur State, and the parties were governed by the law in force in the Kolhapur State. 2. The defendants by their written statement raised numerous contentions against the plaintiff's claim, all of which need not be set out. The contentions material for th...
Mahadev Vasudeo Vs. Janaksingh Saigal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom251; (1954)56BOMLR157; ILR1954Bom695
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee by which he dismissed a notice of motion to set aside an insolvency notice dated December 19, 1952. The insolvency notice callea upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000, being the balance of the amount due under a decree obtained by the respondent against the appellant in suit No. 842 of 1952 filed in the High Court of Calcutta. The insolvency notice was sought to be set aside on two grounds. The first ground 'was that the execution of this decree had been stayed, and the other ground was that the appellant did not reside or carry on business within one year from the date of the insolvency notice as required by the Insolvency Act. 2. Turning to the first point, suit No. 842 of 1952 was a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts and it was filed on March 4, 1952. The decree in this suit was passed on March 31, 1952. Under this decree the appellant became liable to pay Rs. 50,000 by certain instalments....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »