Mumbai Court April 1953 Judgments
State of Bombay Vs. Vishwakant Shrikant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom109; (1953)55BOMLR719
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, that the proceedings, which were before him in regard to an offence under Section 161 of the Penal Code committed by one Vishwa-kant Shrikant Pandit, were void for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The opponent, who was a public servant at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence, was no longer in service at the time when the learned Special Judge passed his order, and the learned Special Judge has passed it upon the footing that at the time when cognizance was taken in the present case, the opponent, who has been dismissed from service, was no longer in service. The learned Special Judge held that sanction was necessary under the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which runs as follows: '6. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Pen...
Tag this Judgment!Bisan Pusha Gond Vs. Mayaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1795
ORDERHemeon, Ag. C.J.1. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. were initiated against Bisan (party No. 1) and Mayaram with 6 others (party No. 2) by the Gondia police; and on 29.9.1951, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondia, passed a preliminary order under that section. Written statements were filed and evidence was recorded. As the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was unable to decide the identity of the party in actual possession, he acted under Section 146 'ibid' and ordered the attachment of the property in question. Party No. 1 sought revision of that order, but his application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, and he has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The property consisted of field 'khasra' No. 294, area 5.93 acres, in Batana, Gondia tahsil, Bhandara district; and party No. 1 claimed that Narbad, its owner, had sub-let the field first to his father and subsequently to himself. He had, he added, received the land on 'batai' as usual from Narbad, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Trade and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhailal Maneklal D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom148; (1953)55BOMLR874; ILR1954Bom296
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting question relating to fire insurance arises on this appeal. The plaintiff insured colours and chemicals which were stored in a godown in Bombay with the defendant company. The goods were destroyed by fire on the evening of 16-6-1951, and the plaintiff filed the suit claiming the amount for which the goods were insured. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mr. R. B. Mehta, in a careful and well considered Judgment dealt with the various contentions raised by the parties and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The insurance company has now come in appeal.2. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff came to Bombay on 4-6-1951, and he was in Bombay till June 9, and his evidence is that he told Natvarlal, who is his son-in-law, to insure the goods which were stored in the godown in Bombay. Natvarlal's evidence is that he asked one Bakshi to get the insurance effected as he had to leave Bombay for Ahmedabad on June 12, and he left a note with t...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakar Jha Vs. Krishna Sewak Agarwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ555
ORDER1. This petition under the Contempt of Courts Act was originally filed by Shri Ratnakar Jha, Public Prosecutor and President of the Municipal Committee, Durg, against Shri K. S. Agarwal, owner, editor, printer and publisher of 'Zindgi', a weekly paper, and Shri K. N. Jha, printer- co-publisher, and co-editor of the same paper. Shri Dwarka Prasad, brother of Shri K.S. Agarwal, was subsequently joined as a non-applicant as owner of the press and paper.2. There had been, according to the petitioner, rivalry and ill-will between Shri K. S. Agarwal and himself for some years; and Shri K. N. Jha had sided with his employer Shri K. S. Agarwal. On the 1st May 1952 the paper contained a long article against the petitioner and his family; and on the 18th August 1852, prior to municipal elections, it published a conversation between two imaginary persons which was extremely disparaging to him. On the 28th September 1952 Shri K. S. Agarwal was attacked; and on the 3rd October 1952 the police ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshmal Pasmal Vs. Nandlal Tulsiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom104; (1953)55BOMLR846; ILR1954Bom92
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Dixit J. because) as he has pointed out in his referring judgment, the question of limitation which falls to be considered in this appeal is of some importance. That question arises in this way. A decree in a mortgage suit was passed under Section 15B, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, on 13-3-1926. This decree made the decretal amount payable by installments and it provided that in case of any single default the decree-holder was entitled to recover the whole of the decretal amount by sale of the mortgaged property. Under the decree the last instalment was payable in 1932. The decree-holder filed several darkhasts between 1927 and 1938 and in fact the mortgaged property was sold in 1935. The decretal amount was still not satisfied and the decree-holder wanted to proceed against the surety, who was defendant 3 in the mortgage suit. With that object he filed the present darkhast in 1945 and he claimed to recover...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar Gopal Vs. Vithoba Jogu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom450; (1954)56BOMLR385; ILR1954Bom671
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment in a suit for ejectment.2. It appears from the evidence that the appellant plaintiff terminated the contractual tenancy by a notice given to the respondent evicting him from 31-3-1945. The notice was actually given on 30-11-1944. There was in force the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, but it has not been made applicable to the area in which the land in suit was situated. Subsequently, however, the Bombay Tenancy Act was amended and the Amended Act has been made applicable to the area in which the land is situated pending the suit. It was under this Amended Act that the defendant tenant took up a contention that he was a protected tenant, and tiie only question which arises in the present appeal is whether he is a protected tenant.3. The question is covered by two decisions of the division benches of this Court. One in --'Ramchandra Atmaram v. Ramchandra Laxman', S. A. NO. 335 of 1948, D/- 14-10-1949 (Bom) (A) and the other...
Tag this Judgment!Vadilal Chatrabhuj Gandhi Vs. Thakorelal Chimanlal Munshaw and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom121; (1953)55BOMLR629; [1954]24CompCas25(Bom); ILR1954Bom79
Chagla, C.J. 1. The Exchange Bank of India and Africa, Ltd., was incorporated on 30-4-1942. It suspended payment on 2-5-1949, and an order of winding up was made on 24-6-1949, and the Official Liquidator was appointed liquidator. On 12-9-1951, the Official Liquidator took out a misfeasance summons against eight directors and two auditors calling upon them to pay various sums of money as being due by them on account of misfeasance committed by them. This summons came on for hearing before Tendolkar J. on 3-11-1952. On 4-11-1952, a compromise was arrived at between six directors and the compromise was to the effect that these directors were prepared to pay a total sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the Liquidator in such proportion or manner as Sir Jamshedji Kanga shall in his absolute discretion decide as a valuer and not as an arbitrator after giving each of the directors a summary hearing. When this compromise was reported to counsel for the Liquidator, he insisted on the liability of all the dir...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmed ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom188; (1953)55BOMLR1028; ILR1954Bom41
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a dispute between 23 rate-payers at Ahmedabad and the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs' case is that Rule 350A which the Corporation has framed in 1947 in respect of the rate on open lands is 'ulrta vires' and the assessment list prepared pursuant to the said rule is illegal and void. They have, therefore, claimed a declaration in that behalf and have asked for an injunction restraining the Corporation from recovering the rates iroin the respective plaintiffs according to the said assessment list.' The defence, in substance, was that the rule is 'intra vires' and the assessment' list which has been properly made in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act is not open to any objection. The learned Judge has held that the rule is 'ultra vires'; he has, therefore, granted the plaintiffs the declarations and injunction as claimed by them. It is this decree which is challenged before us by Mr. Pursholtam o...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Vs. Pandurang Sadashvi Pandit and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1953
Reported in: (1953)ILLJ471Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. The Government of Bombay referred certain disputes between the appellant company and its workers for adjudication by the industrial tribunal and the order of reference was made on 13 May 1950. The industrial tribunal gave its award on 13 August 1951 and the only portion of the award with which we are concerned in this appeal is with regard to leave which the workers enjoyed. It appears that the appellant company gave 15 days' casual leave which included sick leave with full pay to its workers, but it did not permit the workers to accumulate any leave, In other words, at the end of the year, if the whole of the leave was not enjoyed, what was not enjoyed lapsed. The adjudicator in his award converted these 15 days of casual leave to 15 days of casual-cum-sick leave and he allowed the workers to accumulate this leave for a period not exceeding 30 days. The appellant company appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal varied the award made by...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Laxman Bhide and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom41; (1953)55BOMLR758; ILR1954Bom290
Chagla, C.J. 1. The councillors of the Kalyan Municipality were elected by a general election in the beginning of 1949 and their term of office was three years. The first meeting of the Municipality was held on 29-4-1949, and petitioner No. 1 was elected president up to 31-3-1950. One Hande was elected president from 1-4-1950 to 31-3-1951, and petitioner No. 2 was elected president for the period 1-4-1951 to 31-3-1952. Opponent No. 2 was elected president from 1-4-1952 to 31-5-1952. He was elected only for a period of two months because Government had extended ttie life of the Kalyan Municipality for a period of two months.Under the law, the ordinary term of office, as already pointed out, of the Municipality is-three years, but Government have been given the power to extend it for one year. Government further extended the life of the Municipality for seven months up to 31-12-1952. ami on 1-6-1952, opponent No. 2 was again elected president for seven months up to 31-12-1952. Government...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›