Mumbai Court July 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.
Bai Dahi and ors. Vs. Shankarbhai Deojibhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom214; (1953)55BOMLR944; ILR1954Bom330
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioners before me are minors and they filed the suit, being suit No. 216 of 1945-46, by their next friend, the mother in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda. The suit was dismissed for default and an application was made to set aside the order of dismissal. The trial court dismissed the application, & In appeal the learned Assistant Judge has confirmed the order of the trial Court. The minors have now come in revision.2. Now, it has been found as a fact that the mother was grossly negligent in the conduct of the suit. The suit was really attended to by the father and both the father and the mother tried to throw the blame upon a senior practitioner of the Baroda High Court, Mr. Shroff, saying that he did not attend to the matter. But Mr. Shroff has given evidence and has been believed that he informed Dalsukh, the father, from time to time of the various dates to which the suit had been adjourned, but Dalsukh never cared to appear ...
Jairam Vithoba Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom206; (1953)55BOMLR937; ILR1954Bom252
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an application for leave, to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that the case involves a substantial question of law.2. The petitioner was charged, before the learned Presidency Magistrate, 9th Court, Eandra, with having committed offences under Sections 4(a) and 5 of Bombay Act 4 of 1887. The learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner of both the said offences. For the offence Under Section 4(a) he sentenced the; petitioner to three months' rigorous imprisonment and he added that as the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced under Section 4(a), he did not propose to pass a separate sentence or him Under Section 5 of the said Act.Against this order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred a revision application to this Court. Shah J. who heard this revision application set aside the conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 4(a) but maintained his conviction under Section 5, and he imposed a sentence of three mo...
Sidramaya Nilkanthayaswami Wantmurimath Vs. Danava Shidramappa Deshnur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom407; (1954)56BOMLR407; ILR1954Bom717
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice shah for the reason that it raises an important question of limitation. The question is whether the plaintiffs' right to recover the mortgage amount from the successor-in-title of the mortgagor is barred under Art. 132, Limitation Act. This point has been answered against the plaintiffs by the Courts below relying upon the judgment of Mr. Justice Lokur in -- 'Dnyanoba Gangaram v. Dattoba Balappa AIR 1947 Bom 152 (A). When this appeal was argued before Mr. Justice Shah, it was urged before Him that the judgment of Mr. Justice Lokur should be reconsidered in view of the fact that it was apparently inconsistent with the decision of the Privy Council in -- 'Lasa Din v. Gulab Kunwar (BJ. That is why Mr. Justice Shah has sent this matter to a Division Bench for disposal.2. The facts on which the point of limitation arises can be very briefly stated at the outset. The property in suit originally belonged to ...
Himatsing Dhansing Rajput Vs. Sonu Devsing Rajput
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR69
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The point of law which arises in these two appeals is whether the sale-deeds passed in favour of the appellant by the respondent are valid in view of the provisions of Section 40 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act.2. The property in suit consists of two fields, S. Nos. 114 and 30 of Aundanecha Pada in Baglan taluka. These survey numbers originally belonged to the defendant. They were sold by him to the plaintiff by two sale-deeds executed on April 6, 1948, for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 4,000 respectively. The plaintiff's case was that he was put in possession of the properties conveyed to him and that he was subsequently dispossessed. That is why on March 2, 1949, he has filed the present suits to obtain possession of the said two fields.3. The defence was that the sale-deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff are invalid and convey no title to him and this defence is raised under Section 40 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. It appears that an appl...
Motilal Shivnarayan Vs. Santaram Bala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR164
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the darkhast filed by the appellant is maintainable in law. A decree was passed in favour of one Parshuram and against the respondents. This decree provided that the respondents were to give to Parshuram possession of Section Nos. 19 and 107 before November 15, 1941. It further provided that as to Section Nos. 18, 87 and 90, if the respondents paid to Parshuram Rs. 1,000 before. October 28, 1942, they would be entitled to hold the said property as owners; otherwise the decree-holder after waiting for two months should take possession of those lands from the respondents. This decree was passed on October 28, 1941.The next day the decree-holder assigned his rights in respect of Section Nos. 18, 87 and 90 in favour of the present appellant for a consideration of Rs. 400. It is as an assignee of the said rights that the appellant has filed the present darkhast on June 11, 1946. Both the Courts below...
Hastimal Dalichand Bora and ors. Vs. Hiralal Motichand Mutha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom243; (1954)56BOMLR99; ILR1954Bom311
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal from order and revisional application have been filed by the defendants against orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in suit No. 60 of 1948. It appears that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants in regard to the transfer of house No. 2665 at Ahmednagar. A dispute arose between the parties as to the nature of this agreement. The plaintiff alleged that it was an agreement to sell the property, whereas according to the defendants they had merely agreed to mortgage the property. This dispute was referred by the parties to arbitration on January 25, 1948. The arbitrator then made his award.He was of the opinion that the agreement between the parties was one of mortgage and not of sale and on that footing the award purports to direct defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff Rs. 8,500 and interest at the rate mentioned in the award. This amount was made payable by six monthly instalments of Rs. 1,0...
Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb Kotri and anr. Vs. West Patent Press Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom257; (1954)56BOMLR61; ILR1954Bom448
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The short question which arises in this appeal is as to the nature and the extent of the lessee's rights under the lease in question. 2. This question arises in this way. The property in suit which is S. No. 66 at Bagalkot was leased out for 30 years to West Patent Press Co., Ltd., Bagalkot. This company is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Before the period of 30 years stipulated in the lease had expired, another lease was executed in supersession of the first between the same parties on April 26, 1900. This was for 30 years. On July 8, 1910, the lessee assigned his rights under the lease to Dodveerappa. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are successors in title of Dodveerappa. In the present suit which was filed by the lessors on June 14, 1947, they alleged that the lessee was holding under a tenancy at will and so he was not entitled to transfer his rights to a third party. The said transfer according to the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy in question and so they claimed pos...
Ziakh Vs. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1953
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ278Bom
Desai, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari against the second respondent, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, in a matter decided by it and relating to the dismissal of the petitioner by the first respondent.2. The petitioner's case is that; he has been an employee of the first respondents for nine years. In respect of certain disputes between their employees and the first respondents an appeal was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent. Pending that appeal the first respondents decided to dissmiss the petitioner. As there was the appeal pending in respect of an industrial dispute the first respondents were under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act bound to apply to the second respondent for permission to dismiss the petitioner. They preferred such an application to the second respondent, and the second respondent granted the permission asked for. It is against that order of the second respondent that this petitio...
Laxmibai Atmaram Vs. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom180; (1953)55BOMLR924; ILR1954Bom353; (1954)ILLJ614Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner (or Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, by which he dismissed the application of Shrimati Laxmibai, the widow of one Atmaram Ramchandra Karangutkar, for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner held that the deceased Atmaram was not a workman within the meaning of the Act, and he also held that the deceased did not die of an injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased Atmaram.2. The facts really are not in dispute. The deceased was a watchman employed by the Post Trust at its pumping station at Carnac Bunder, Bombay, and as usual he was on night duty on the night of August 20. 1951, and the hours of his duty were 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. At 1 a.m. on August 21 the deceased complained of pain in his chest and was asked to lie down. His condition deteriorated and at about 6 a.m, he died. The medical evidence showed that the deceased was suffering from ...
Eugene Fernandes Vs. the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and Caltex ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1953
Reported in: (1953)ILLJ474Bom
Desai, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari against the first respondents, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, to quash an order made by it in an appeal against an order passed by the industrial tribunal in an application under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The facts, none of which is in dispute, are these: The petitioner is a driver in the employment of Caltex (India), Ltd., the second respondents. On the morning of 28 November 1952 he was on duty at the Santa Cruz Aerodrome in an area where smoking was prohibited. Under 'Aircraft Ground Fire Precautions 'smoking is prohibited within 100 feet of an aircraft that is being refuelled, A 'No Smoking' sign had been placed on the site. At that time a Constellation aircraft was being refuelled and the petitioner was found smoking at a distance of 25 feet from the same. He was apprehended on the spot and an inquiry into this matter was held by the second respondents on 4 December 1952. A charge-sheet was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »