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.
Dagadu Kushaba Aware Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom302; (1954)56BOMLR138; ILR1954Bom1307; (1954)IILLJ296Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner is an employee of opponent No. 2 Mills and he has come to us complaining of an order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on 22 July, 1953, and that order came to be passed under the following circumstances. On 3 January, 1953, opponent No. 2 Mills gave a notice of change under Section 42, Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the change which they proposed to effect was that they wanted to introduce four-looms-to-a weaver system in weaving shed No. 3. On 3 July, 1953, in conciliation proceedings between the Mills. and the workers, a settlement was arrived at and that settlement was registered before the conciliator, and the settlement was that two assessors who were named should decide whether the management should introduce this four-looms-to-a weaver system and the decision of the assessors was to be binding upon the Mills and upon opponent No. 3 which is a Representative Union within the meaning of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.It may be pointe...
Mahibub Usman Vs. Vithal Sakharam and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom311; (1954)56BOMLR221; ILR1954Bom586
1. On the death of Sakharam Gadade, his widow Savitra inherited his property. On 12 July, 1929, Savitra executed a deed of mortgage to secure repayment of Rs. 2,000 in favour of one Dhondi Imam mortgaging some lands including Survey Nos. 27, 85, 85/1, 85/3, 5S/1 and 56/3 inherited by he: from her husband. The period of the mortgage was 5 years. Savitra then adopted Vithal (who was a minor) as a. son to her deceased husband. Savitra' died some time thereafter. After the death of Savitra, Vithal sold the mortgaged lands to one Ramrao Awate who is respondent No. 2 in this second appeal.The plaintiff as an assignee of the rights ot the mortgagee Dhondi Imam filed suit No. 593 of 1946 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Barsi against Vithal, Ramrao Awate and others for enforcement of the mortgage dated 12 July 1929, and claimed a decree for Us. 4,000.2. Vithal by his written statement denied knowledge of the mortgage and of the consideration thereof. He also contended that ...
State of Bombay Vs. Gajanan Mahadev Badley
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom351; (1954)56BOMLR172; ILR1954Bom915
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that an order passed by the state of Bombay, which was the defendant, on 24-6-1949, reducing the plaintiff from the rank of an Inspector in the Rationing Department to a clerk, was illegal and void, that he still continues to hold the office of an Inspector, and also for a decree for a certain amount for arrears of salary. The suit was heard by Mr. Hathi, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, and he gave the declaration to the plaintiff which he sought and also passed a decree in his favour for arrears of salary. The State of Bombay has now come in appeal, and the first question that we have to consider is whether the order of 24-6-1949, which is challenged was a legal and valid order. 2. On 18-1-1949, the plaintiff, who was then an Inspector in the Rationing Office, was served with a notice by the Controller of Rationing, Bombay, and in this notice it was stated that on 20-11-1948, the plaintiff ca...
A.R. Savkur Vs. Amritlal Kalidas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom293; (1954)56BOMLR89; ILR1954Bom686
Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question under the Arbitration Act arises in this appeal. The appellant engaged the respondents to effect certain transactions on the stock exchange. The respondents are brokers and members of the Bombay Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association. In respect of certain transactions the respondents made a claim upon the appellant. The appellant having failed to pay, at the instance of the respondents the matter was referred to arbitration. The appellant challenged the right of the arbitrators to go into matters which were in dispute between him and the respondents, and his contention was that the contract being a forward contract and not a ready contract for purchase and sale of shares, the contract was void, and therefore the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration was also invalid and not binding.2. Notwithstanding the objection of the appellant, the arbitrators proceeded with the arbitration and made and published their award on 21st June, 19...
Prabhakar Dinanath Vs. Shaligram Dinanath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom256; (1954)56BOMLR87; ILR1954Bom682
Chagla, C.J. 1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant are brothers and respondent No. 3 is the mother. The appellant filed a partition suit, the family being a joint and undivided Hindu family, and the partition sought was a partition of property belonging to the Joint family. A preliminary decree in this suit was passed on November 21, 1950. On January 25, 1952, the Court directed that an immovable property belonging to the joint family should be sold by the Commissioner either by public auction or by private contract. On November 14, 1952, pursuant to this order the Commissioner put up the property to auction. The -highest bid reached was Rs. 70,000, and as that bid did not come up to the reserve bid fixed, the auction was postponed.On April 2, 1953, the Court reduced the reserve bid and the property was again put up for auction on May 13, 1953, when Rs. 70,500 were offered by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and that being the highest bid and as that came up to the reserve bid, the pr...
T.P. Kapadia and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom270; (1954)56BOMLR143; ILR1954Bom595
Chagla, C.J.1. A sanad in respect of the village of Khasbag situated in the Belgaum -District was granted to one Mootoo Koomar Moodliar on March 2, 1860. It is not disputed that as a result of this sanad all proprietary rights of Government in this village vested in the grantee. The petitioners purchased this village from the successor-in-title of the original grantee by a sale-deed dated March 27, 1947. This village of Khasbag is a surveyed and settled village. Some time prior to December, 1947, the inferior holders of survey Nos. 68 and 69 of this village converted these survey numbers to non-agricultural purpose. Originally agricultural assessment was levied upon these survey numbers and that assessment was collected by the petitioners under their right under the sanad.When these survey numbers were converted to non-agricultural use, the petitioners called upon the Collector of Belgaum to levy upon these numbers non-agricultural assessment and a fine under Section 66 of the Bombay L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›