Mumbai Court October 1954 Judgments
In Re: Reference Under Section 5, Court-fees Act
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom287; (1955)57BOMLR180; ILR1955Bom530
1. This is a reference made to me under Section 5, Court-fees Act by the Taxing Officer, Appellate Side, of this Court. It raises a very interesting and important question as to whether a certain provision of Bombay Act 12 of 1954 is retrospective. The question that I have to decide is, what are the proper Court-fees to be paid by the appellant in F.A. No. 5474 of 1954, by the appellant in F. A. No. 6150 of 1954; and by the respondent in Cross-Objection No. 6102 of 1954. As the matter in controversy is common to both the appeals and the gross-objections, one reference has been made in respect of all the three. 2. Now, these two First Appeals and the Cross-Objections arise out of suits filed for partition and these suits were filed prior to 1-4-1954, when Bombay Act 12 of 1954 came into force. When these suits were filed, the Court-fees paid were Rs. 18-12-0 and that was on assumption that suits for partition by a coparcener when he is in constructive possession of joint family property...
Tag this Judgment!M.Y. Shareef and Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ133
Mahajan C.J.(1) This appeal by special leave arises out of contempt proceedings taken against two very senior members of the Nagpur Bar and one of their clients. Shri Shareef, one of the appellants, at one time was Minister for Law and Justice in the State. Dr. Kathalay, the second appellant, is a Doctor of Laws and an author of legal works. The matter which resulted in the issue of the show cause notices for contempt took a protracted course and has to a certain extent resulted in embittered feelings. What happened was this:(2) Shri Zikar who was charged along with the two appellants for contempt made an application under Article 226(1) of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental right, alleging that he was a citizen of Bharat, and that the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the police were taking wrongful action against him and treating him as a national of Pakistan which he never was. He prayed for an interim order of prohibition against the State from deporting him after ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandyan Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.J. Khambatta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom241; (1955)57BOMLR186; 1955CriLJ1039; ILR1955Bom443
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application by the Pandyan Insurance. Company for a writ under Article 227 to correct a decision given by the Chief Presidency Magistrate who is investigating into the loss of S.S. Janaki which took place on 13-3-1954. The order complained of is refusing the petitioners and 34 other insurance companies to be made parties to these proceedings. The facts briefly are that on 13-3-1954, S.S. Janaki sailed outward from Bombay 'laden with cargo, and the ship had hardly left the harbour when she took successive/lists first to starboard and then to port and suddenly capsized a few miles of Kanheri Island, becoming a total loss. The casualty consisted of seven lives including that of the master and the mate and one passenger and with the loss of all the cargo which was on board.The cargo was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company and also the other insurance companies, a list of which is annexed to the petition. The cargo was insured for a sum exceeding Rs. 12,3...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Jamnadas Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR155; (1956)IILLJ307Bom
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises for decision on this reference is whether the godown in question which belongs to the accused is a shop within the meaning of S. 2(27) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. This question arises in this way : 2. The accused owns a bidi shop at house No. 567, Nana Peth, Poona. Attached to this shop is a godown. In addition to this godown the accused owns another godown at No. 231/1, Nana Peth. The case against the accused was that on 9 August, 1953 the inspector of shops visited this latter godown at about 9 a.m. He discovered that a statement in form A had not been submitted by the accused in respect of this godown, although the godown was used for storage of bidi leaves for more than six months. This constitutes an offence under S. 7(1) of the Act. It was also found that the closure notice board was not displayed in the godown. This constitutes an offence under S. 18(1) of the Act. The inspector also noticed that a visit ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathubhai Gandabhai Desai Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR199
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. By these various petitions the petitioners challenge orders made by Government under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, assuming management of their respective lands. The substantial facts in most of these petitions are identical and perhaps it would be sufficient if we deal with the facts of one petition, and if there are any differentiating facts in the other petitions draw attention to those facts. We will deal with petition No. 1184 of 1954.2. Now, in that case a notice was given by the Mamlatdar to the petitioner on August 18, 1953, and by that notice the petitioner was ordered to arrange to cultivate either personally or by tenant the lands belonging to him and a fortnight's time was given. The petitioner owns 100 acres and 24 gunthas in the village Sonwada, Taluka Pardi, District Surat. As the petitioner did not comply with this notice, an order was passed on June 10, 1954, and this order contains a recital that inasmuch as the...
Tag this Judgment!AswIn Shambhuprasad Patel and ors. Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom262; (1955)57BOMLR209
ORDER1. A question of very great importance to the Bar has been rained by Mr. Bengeri on this petition. The petitioner gave a general power-of-attorney to one Shambhuprasad in a civil revision application and when the application came up before me this Shambhuprasad wanted to address me in Court on behalf of his client, and the question that arises is whether a constituted attorney has the right of audience in this Court on behalf of the party. 2. Mr. Bengeri relies on the provisions of Order III, Rule 1. Order III deals with recognised agents and pleaders and Rule 1 thereof provides that 'Any appearance, application or act in or to any court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, he made or done by the parly in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may he, on his behalf.'It is to be noted that this rule mer...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Pandu and ors. Vs. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom283; (1955)57BOMLR399; (1955)IILLJ5Bom
ORDER1. A rather important question arises on this civil revision application as to the right of appeal by an employer under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. It appears that a joint application of certain employees totalling about 99 of the opponent railway was made to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Their claim was that they were entitled to house rent as part of their wages, that that part had not been paid, and therefore there was delay in payment of wages. The Authority upheld the contention of the employees and gave a direction that a sum of Rs. 8,775 plus Rs. 9,165 should be deposited by the railway authority in Court to be paid to the various employees in the amounts mentioned in the schedule to the order. Against this decision the railway went in appeal to the Small Causes Court at Bombay and the learned Chief Judge reversed the decision of the Authority, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the application of the workers. It is against that order that this re...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Tukaram Jadhav and anr. Vs. the Secretary to the Chief Ministe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom315; 1955CriLJ1156
ORDERFACTS K and S sent a petition to the Chief Minister and the Minister of Civil Supplies making certain allegations against V, a Jamcdar to the Chief Minister. Thereafter the Secretary to the Chief Minister filed a complaint under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code charging K and S with giving false information to the minister intending him to punish V or with the intention that the minister should use his lawful power as a public servant to the injury and annoyance of V. He also produced an authority signed by the minister authorising him to file the complaint. During trial the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was objected to on the ground that he had no complaint signed by the proper public servant, namely the Chief Minister before him. The Magistrate overruled this objection holding that the word 'complaint' in Section 195, Criminal P. C. was not used in the technical sense in which it was used in Section 4 and that the Chief Minister having authorised his secretary to fi...
Tag this Judgment!The Automobile Products of India Ltd. Vs. P.D. Vyas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR751
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition by the Automobile Products of India, Ltd., for setting aside by a writ of certiorari or other writ, direction or order a supplementary award made by the Industrial Tribunal on March 17, 1954. The respondents are the Industrial Tribunal as respondent No. 1, the President of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Member of the Labour Appellate Tribunal as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and an employee of the petitioner on behalf of himself and all other employees as respondent No. 4.2. The facts that are material for the purpose of determining this petition are few. A dispute arose between the petitioner and its monthly paid employees as regards bonus for the year 1950-51, and the Government of Bombay by an order dated March 20, 1952, under Section 10(7)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal consisting of respondent No. 1. By an award dated March 10, 1953, the petitioner was directed to pay a bonus 'equivalent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›