Mumbai Court December 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.
Eugene Fernandes Vs. the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom342; (1954)56BOMLR291; ILR1954Bom827; (1954)ILLJ623Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Desai J. by which he dismissed the petition presented by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the second respondent company as a driver; and on 28th November 1952, he was on duty at the Santa Cruz Aerodrome in an area where smoking Is prohibited, and was found smoking in that area. Action was taken by the second respondent company against the petitioner for smoking in the prohibited area. The petitioner admitted his guilt, and the second respondent company applied under Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for the permission of the Industrial Court for dismissing the petitioner. The Industrial Court refused the permission. On that the second respondent company preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and granted ...
Mohamed Balam Shaikh Vs. R.S. Trivedi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR991
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate writ, direction or order in connection with several orders passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Additional Custodian and Assistant Custodian, who are the four respondents in this petition,2. From the petition as drafted it is extremely difficult to find out what the actual grievance of the petitioner is and on what ground or grounds he challenges any one of the many orders. Strangely enough, not a single one of the orders challenged is annexed to the petition. That by itself is a serious lapse and might have entailed the consequence of the dismissal of the petition because it is quite essential that the order sought to be set aside must be before the Court and it is not sufficient merely to refer to the orders in the petition. But fortunately for the petitioner the respondents have made good the deficiency by annexing all the orders to the affidavit in reply and the orders are now before...
Shivaji Ganpati Muthal and ors. Vs. Murlidhar Daji Muthal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom386; (1954)56BOMLR426; ILR1954Bom794
Chagla, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this Pull Bench are very few. Ganpati, who is the father of the plaintiffs, made an alienation of joint family property in 1936. At that time the joint family consisted of Ganpati and his son Maruti who was at that time a minor. Maruti left the joint family in 1942 as he was given away in adoption, but before the adoption took place the plaintiffs were born to Ganpati. The plaintiffs filed the suit to challenge this alienation and the trial Court held that the alienation was not supported by necessity. The trial Court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to challenge the alienation and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. In appeal the lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court with regard to the necessity for the alienation, but on the question of the right of the plaintiffs it came to a contrary conclusion and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.The matter then came in second appeal before Mr. Justice Gajendra...
Mahadu Kashiba Varnekar Vs. Gajarabai Shankar Varnekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom442; (1954)56BOMLR387; ILR1954Bom885
Bavdekar, J.1. The property in the suit, from which the present appeal arises, originally belonged to a joint family consisting of two brothers, Shripati and Shankar. Shankar died first leaving a widow Gajara, who was the plaintiff in the suit. On 11-5-1945, Shripati executed a sale deed of all the properties of the joint family in favour of defendant No. 1 for Rs. 700, and the properties are since then in the possession of defendant No. 1. Shripati died in September 1945.On 28-8-1947, the plaintiff gave a notice to defendant No. 1, and then she instituted the present suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the lands, which were conveyed by Shripati to defendant No. 1. The defence was that Shripati was suffering from T. B.; that he had already incurred debts, because he had to undergo heavy expenses for his treatment in the Wai hospital, and that he had also further necessity of moneys for his treatment. It was the case of defendant No. 1 besides that in any cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›