Mumbai Court January 1954 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.
Bhagubai Vs. General Manager, Central Railway, V.T., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom105; (1954)56BOMLR509; ILR1954Bom1051
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a rather unusual case arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The facts briefly are that the deceased was a mukadam employed in the Central Railway at Kurla station and he lived in the railway quarters adjoining the Kurla railway station. It was found as a fact that the only access for the deceased from his quarters to the Kurla railway station was through the compound of the railway quarters. On 20-12-1952, the deceased left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty and immediately thereafter he was stabbed by some unknown person. It is not disputed by the railway company that the deceased died as a result of an accident, nor is it disputed that the accident arose in the course of his employment.But what is disputed is that the accident did arise out of the employment of the deceased. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and therefore dismissed the claim made b...
K.K. Verma and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom358; (1954)56BOMLR308; ILR1954Bom950
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Desai and it raises a very short question as to the interpretation of Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, being Act No. 27 of 1950. It is necessary to state only a few facts in order to understand and appreciate the legal arguments that are advanced before us.2. The respondent is a displaced person and he has a son in the army and a flat which is situated at Dhobi Talao was given to him under instructions from the Ministry of Defence on the basis that he was a dependant of an army officer and was a displaced person. It is not In dispute that a contractual monthly tenancy was created between the Union of India, which is the owner of these premises, and the respondents, and by notice to quit given on behalf of the Union on 25-6-1953, the tenancy was terminated.As the respondent did not hand over possession, as a matter of fact he had filed the petition from which this appeal arises on 15-4-1953, prior...
Bahubali Vasant Katage Vs. Gundappa Tatya Duge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom451; (1954)56BOMLR501; ILR1954Bom1026
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal raises the vexed question of Hindu law as to the character and effect of the act of surrender on the part of a Hindu widow. We have had occasion to refer this question to a Pull Bench in -- 'Pandu Lote v. Shrimati', : AIR1953Bom428 along with another question. While dealing with the questions referred by us to the Full Bench, the Pull Bench considered and answered the first question, but they held that it was unnecessary to answer the second question, and it is the second question which arises for decision in the present appeal. It is perfectly true that, though in this judgment the learned Chief Justice has said that it is unnecessary to consider the point raised by the second question submitted to the Full Bench, he has indicated the view which the Pull Bench were likely to take if they had felt it necessary to decide this point. Perhaps if the matter had stood with the decision of the Full Bench alone, we might have proceeded to deal with this appea...
Laxman Govinda and ors. Vs. Dagdu Shripati Satale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom457; (1954)56BOMLR563; ILR1954Bom1038
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises a short question of limitation which arises in this way. A suit (No. 14 of 19411 to recover possession of certain immoveable property was dismissed on 3-9-1945. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against this decree, but the appeal (civil appeal No. 46 of 1946) was also dismissed on 14-8-1946, Thereafter the plaintiff applied for a review of the said- decree (review application No. 10 of 1947). On this application, rule was issued, but ultimately it was discharged and the application for review was dismissed on 8-1-1948. The present darkhast application has been filed by the defendant to recover his costs from the plaintiff, and he has been met with a plea of limitation.It is common ground that if the defendant is entitled to exclude the period which was occupied by the plaintiff's application for review, the present darkhast would be In time. On the other hand, if the said period cannot be excluded, then the present darkhast would be barred by ti...
Jehangir Bomanji and ors. Vs. C.D. Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom419; (1954)56BOMLR478; ILR1954Bom1015
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioners are the present trustees of a deed of trust dated 28-3-1928, and as such trustees they owned certain land at Goregaon admeasuring about 24 acres. In June 1948 Government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act in relation to this land and a notification under Section 6 was issued on 4-6-1949. In July 1949 notice to file the claim was given and pursuant to this notice the petitioners filed a claim in November 1949. They made a claim of about Rs. 28,00,000.As far as the petitioners were concerned, nothing further happened till March 1953 and then they came to know that an award had been made by the Collector on 28-12-1951, by which award he had awarded to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 28,128-3-0. They then applied to the Collector for a reference under Section 18. The Collector declined to make a reference on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. and the petitioners have come before us for a writ to compel the Collector to m...
iron and Hardware (India) Co. Vs. Firm Shamlal and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom423; (1954)56BOMLR473; ILR1954Bom739
Chagla, C.J. 1. These three revision applications raise a common question. Applications were made by creditors who allege that they are displaced persons within the meaning of Act 70 of 1951 for damages for breach of contract, and two principal questions arise for my determination. One is whether it is competent to displace persons to maintain an application under this Act in the name of the firm in which they are carrying on business, and the second is whether the Act covers cases of damages for breach of contract.2. Turning to the first point, it is not disputed that the partners of the firm which has made applications against three debtors in these three applications are displaced persons. But what is urged is that the firm does not satisfy the definition of 'displaced person' given in Section 2(10). The definition is:' 'displaced person' means any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such...
Govind Dhondo Tamboli Vs. Mannabai Govind Dalwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR470
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This revision application raises a question as to the maintainability of an application made under Section 80 of the Bombay Money-lenders' Act, 1946. The opponents filed this application before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmed-nagar, in respect of three sets of transactions. One was of four mortgages, the principal amount of which was about Rs. 19,600, executed by the opponents between 1923 and 1945. The second set of transactions was in respect of three promissory notes, the principal amount of which was Rs. 950, executed by the opponents between 1940 and 1948, and an amount due at the foot of a khata, the amount being Rs. 141, which money was borrowed by the opponents in 1948-49.2. Mr. Tarkunde's contention is two-fold. One is that an application under Section 80 can only be made provided a suit is pending, and the second that an application for taking accounts and declaring the amount due to the money-lender can only be made under Section 80 in respect of lo...
The State Vs. Mahipatram Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR273
Bavdakar, J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with points not material to the report, proceeded] : It is said, however, that even upon the footing that the Order is a valid Order, the appellant in this case has not committed any offence, inasmuch as the Order in this case being a statutory order came into force only upon its publication. The statute authorises the publication of the orders issued thereunder in the Official Gazette. Inasmuch as the power which was conferred to issue the Order was conferred upon the Central Government, this meant a Gazette of India under the General Clauses Act. The Order in this case bears the date April 19, 1952; but it is not in dispute that it appeared in an issue in the Gazette of India bearing date April 21, 1952. There is no evidence, however, as to the date upon which this Gazette was published, and it is contended that the appellant could not be convicted of an offence which he appears to have committed, if at all, on April 26, 1952, because it ha...
Lalitabai Banwarilal Vs. the Dominion of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR923
Desai, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the contentions of the parties, proceeded,] It was argued by Mr. R. J. Joshi for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that the order of attachment and the prohibitory order both dated August 23, 1948, related to a matter concerning revenue or concerning collection of revenue according to the law for the time being in force. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935; That sub-section is as under : Until otherwise provided by Act of the appropriate legislature, no High Court shall have any original jurisdiction in any matter concerning the revenue, or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof according to the usage and practice of the country or the law for the time being in force.2. The key stone of the argument was that the suit concerned revenue and an order for collection of income-tax dues as arrears of revenue. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the nature of the suit filed by ...
Mahipatram Chunilal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1434
1. On 26-4-1952, a motor lorry was stopped at about 5 a.m. on Maroshi Road near Aarey Milk Colony by police-officers who were on patrol duty. On a search being made 53 cases containing two tins of 56 Ibs. each of skimmed milk powder were found inside the lorry. As there was no permit to cover the import of the skimmed milk powder into Greater Bombay, the persons in the lorry (accused Nos. 1 to 4) as well as one Mahipatram (accused No. 5,) who had imported the skimmed milk powder were charged under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, read with Government of India Notification No. P30-14/51-E.P., dated April 19, 1952, the relevant portions of which were as follows:-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (24 of 1946), the Central Government hereby makes the following order....2... (b) Controlled Area means any of the following areas, namely- (i) Greater Bombay....(d) Export means to take ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »