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.
Jadavji Narsidas Shah and Co. Vs. Hirachand Chatrabhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom174; (1953)55BOMLR918; ILR1954Bom348
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Bakhle Judge of the City Civil Court, dismissing the notice of motion taken out by the defendants for stay of proceedings under Section 34, Arbitration Act. The plaintiff filed a summary suit on 17-4-1952, & appearance was filed by the defendants on 25-4-1952. On 4-7-1952, the plaintiff took out a summons for judgment, and on 12-7-1952, the defendants filed an affidavit in reply setting out the defence and asking for leave to defend. The defendants took out a notice of motion for stay on 24-7-1952, and this is the notice of motion which was dismissed by Mr. Bakhle. The ground on which the learned Judge dismissed the notice of motion was that by filing the affidavit in reply the defendants had taken a step in the proceedings within the meaning of Section 34. 2. Now, it is clear that under Section 34 it is necessary that the party who applies for stay should himself take a step in the proceedings before he becomes disentitled to the ...
Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom202; (1953)55BOMLR922; ILR1954Bom247
Chagla, C.J. 1. In February 1949 the petitioners were granted a permit to run a transport bus for carrying passengers on the Kolhapur-Valivade route under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 23-5-1951, the petitioners applied to the Regional Transport Officer for a permit to run a second bus. The Regional Authority held a meeting on January 30, 1952, to consider the application, and on 3-3-1952, he granted a permit to the petitioners. Respondent 4 and 2 others had also applied for a permit, but their application was rejected. Respondent 4 appeal- ' ed to the State Transport Authority, and on 30-6-1952, the appeal of respondent 4 was dismissed. Respondent 4 went in appeal to Government and the Government by their order dated 15-1-1953, reversed the decision of the Regional Transport Officer and directed that a permit should be granted to respondent 4. It is that order which is challenged before us by the petitioners. 2. Two preliminary objections have been taken by the Advocate...
Ashalal Maganlal Shah Vs. Punjaji Ghalaji Choudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom301; (1954)56BOMLR60; ILR1954Bom446
ORDER1. These four revision applications raise the same question. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act was made applicable to Mehsana on 1 August, 1949, and the last day for making an application under Section 4(1) was 31 January, 1950. In three applications the creditors posted their applications under Section 4(1) on 31 January, 1950, and in one case on 30 January, but the applications were received by the Court on 1 February, 1950, and the Court below has taken the view that these applications are out of time. 2. Rule 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Rules provides that the applications under Section 4(1) shall be presented to the Court during office hours by the appellant personally or shall be sent by registered post addressed to the Court and shall be received by the Court or Judge or by such person as may be authorised by him to receive them. In my opinion on a true construction of this rule, it is clear that the Legislature has constituted the post office as it...
Appabhai Motibhai Vs. Laxmichand Zaverchand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom159; (1953)55BOMLR916; ILR1954Bom243
Chagla, C.J.1. An interesting question arises in this revision application as to the effect of service of a summons by a registered post under Order 5, Rule 21A, Civil P, C., 1908. The 'ex parte' decree was passed on 22-6-1944, and the defendant was served by registered post. The packet was returned marked 'refused'. Execution proceedings were taken out in 1951 arid it was at that time according to the defendant that he came to know that a decree had been passed against him and he applied to set aside the 'ex parte' decree. The trial Court dismissed the application, and in appeal the learned District Judge has confirmed that decision.The defendant in his affidavit on the application to set aside the 'ex parte' decree stated that he was not in Ahmedabad at the material time and he therefore did not receive the registered packet containing the summons.2. In -- 'Sunder Spinner v Makan Bhula', AIR 1922 Bom 377 (A) a Division Bench of this Court laid down that the Court must allow the defen...
Gram Panchayat, Vidul of Vidul Vs. Multi Purpose Co-operative Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ407
ORDER1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Darwha-Pusad, by which the amount of the fine of Rs. 50/- imposed by the petitioner on respondent No. 1 under Rule 5 for breach of Rule 1 of Clause XXV of the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayat Rules, 1948, (hereinafter called the Rules), was reduced to Rs. 5/-.2. The petitioner is a Gram Panchayat at Vidul in taluq Pusad of Yeotmal district, which is constituted under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946, (hereinafter called the Act). Respondent No. 1 is the Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society at Vidul within the Gram. Panchayat area. Under Section 41 (2) of the Act, the Gram Panchayat was entitled to require every person practising the calling of buyer, broker, commission agent, weigher or measurer within its area to take out a licence and to levy such fee therefor as may be prescribed. In pursuance of this authority read with Rule 1 o...
Tukaram Piraji and anr. Vs. Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom171; (1953)55BOMLR911; ILR1954Bom438
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an application made by the employees of the Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills, Ltd., which is opponent No. 1, under Articles. 226 and227 of the Constitution for a writ against the Labour Appellate Tribunal. It appears that on 29-8-1951, notice was given by opponent No. 1 Mills that weavers will be required to work on four looms instead of two looms. Pursuant to this notice, there was a cessation of work by the weavers from September 6. Opponent No. 1 Mills made an application to the Labour Court that the cessation of work by the weavers constituted an illegal strike, and the weavers on their part made an application to the Labour Court that the cessation of work constituted an illegal lock-out, and they also contended that no notice had been given of the change by the Mills as required by Section 42, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, and therefore the change made was an illegal change. Petitioner No. 1 is a weaver and petitioner No. 2 is the Poona Girni Kamgar Uni...
Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills, Ltd. and anr. Vs. Poona Girni Kamgar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1953
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ124Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application made by the employees of the Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills, Ltd., which is the first opponent, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ against the Labour Appellate Tribunal. It appears that on 29 August 1951 notice was given by the first opponent mills that weavers will be required to work on four looms Instead of two looms. Pursuant to this notice, there was a cessation of work by the weavers from 5 September. The first opponent mills made an application to the labour court that the cessation of work by the weavers constituted an illegal strike, and the weavers on their part made an application to the labour court that the cessation of work constituted an illegal lockout, and they also contended that no notice had been given of the change by the mills as required by Section 42 of the B.I.R. Act, and therefore the change made was an illegal change. The first petitioner is a weaver and the second petitioner is the Poona Girni Ka...
Fateh Mohd. Jan Mohd. and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ288
ORDER1. This an application under Article 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India for a certificate filed by 5 of the 6 persons whose appeal was dismissed by one of us on 5-3-1953. The appeal was against their convictions and sentences to 2 concurrent terms, each of 3 years rigorous Imprisonment, under Sections 395 and 120B, Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, who had accepted a unanimous verdict of the jury to the effect that they were liable under those sections.2. The contention that the learned trial Judge had not given proper directions to the jury and that because of this they had found the applicants liable cannot succeed. He had been at pains to warn the jury not only that the evidence of the accomplice required corroboration in material particulars but that he was not a reliable witness. It was open, however, to the jury to disregard this warning and as there was some material which inculpated the accused, it was for the jury and not for the Judge to evaluate it. Th...
A.C. Patel Vs. Vishwanath Chada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom204; (1953)55BOMLR941; ILR1954Bom434
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather interesting question relating to the competence of the State Legislature arises in this civil revision application. The landlord filed a suit, for evicting his tenant. The premises are-situated in the cantonment area of Kirkee. The trial Court held that the tenant was protected under the Rent Restriction Act (Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947) and dismissed the landlord's suit. In appeal the District Judge, Foona. confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 2. In revision the contention raised by Mr. Kotwal on behalf of the landlord is that the Rent Restriction Act, to the extent that it protects the tenants and creates a statutory tenancy, does not apply to the cantonment area of Kirkee. For this purpose reliance is placed on Entry 2 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act. The case was governed by Act 57 of 1947 and therefore competence of the Legislature has got to be determin...