Mumbai Court December 1954 Judgments
Yeshpal Jashbhai Parikh Vs. Rasiklal Umedchand Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom318; (1955)57BOMLR282; 1955CriLJ1159; ILR1955Bom675
ORDER1. The opponent, who is the Home Minister of Saurashtra, has filed against the applicant, an author and publisher, a complaint for an offence of defamation under Section 500, Penal Code. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate is trying that case and in the course of trial the opponent has been examined-in-chief. The cross-examination of the opponent was commenced on 23-11-1954, when the applicant himself cross-examined the opponent for four hours. The cross-examination was continued on 24-11-1954, and Mr. 1. C. Dalai appearing for the accused-applicant cross-examined the opponent for two hours and forty minutes on that day. The cross-examination was then continued on the next day i.e., on 25-11-1954, and the cross-examination lasted for two hours. The cross-examination was again continued on 26th November, and it went on for four and a half hours.It appears that, in all, the cross-examination has lasted so far for 13 hours. At the end of the day's hearing on 26-11-1954, the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Bachharaj Factories Ltd. Vs. Hirjee Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR378; [1955]25CompCas227(Bom)
Coyajee, J.1. This is a petition, resented by the petitioners who are creditors in the sense that they are debenture holders to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000 in the company, namely Hirjee Mills Ltd. and they are asking for an order that the Hirjee Mills Ltd. be wound up under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and they are asking also for the appointment of the court liquidator. 2. Before I go to the details set out in the petition and in the affidavit I may make certain preliminary observations. The first is that in fact the petitioners are not the only secured creditors and there are other debenture holders who have not come before the court and made any submissions either way nor have the Bank of Baroda Ltd. who are mortgagees and the first mortgagees come before this court to make any submissions on this petition. The petitioners are supported by two very small creditors, one to the extent of Rs. 1,400 odd and another to the extent of Rs. 700 odd. On the other hand this petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakaran Kabre Vs. Saifee Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Bom63; (1955)57BOMLR950
1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the plaintiffs for leave under Order 21. Rule 50, Civil P. C., to execute a decree on an award obtained by them in this Court against Akbar-ally Mulla Rasoolji, as a partner of the firm of Saifee Brothers, the defendants. The hearing of the summons was adjourned into Court. Mr. Shavaksha, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has. asked me to raise an issue in the following form:'Whether Akbarally Mulla Rasulji (The person sought to be held liable was, or held himself out to be, a partner in the defendant firm.'2. Mr. Mody, learned counsel for Akbarally Mulla Rasoolji, has urged that such a wide issue cannot be raised in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 50, of the Code. It will be convenient to set out Sub-rule (2) Of Order 21, Rule 50 :'Where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than such person as Is referred to in Sub-rule (1), Clauses (b) and (c), as being a partner in the firm, h...
Tag this Judgment!Jerbanoo Rustomji Garda Vs. Pootlamai Manecksha Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom447; (1955)57BOMLR884; ILR1955Bom821
Chagla, C.J.1. But it is not sufficient to dispose of this matter on this ground because there is another important aspect of the matter which has been agitated at the bar and to which in our opinion it is necessary to make a reference.Even if the appeal was competent, in our opinion it would have been futile for this Court to hear this appeal and go into the merits of the matter when probate proceedings have been launched and are actually pending before the Probate Court. Mr. Mehervaid says that we should decide the merits of the appeal because the decision given by the learned Judge on the various issues raised before him would become 'res judicata' as between his client and the respondents in the probate proceedings.In our opinion, it is clear that a decision as to the proof of the will given by any civil Court can under no circumstance operate as 'res judicata' in probate proceedings taken out in the Probate Court. In a civil suit the Court is only concerried with deciding the righ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Laxman Vaite Vs. Lionel Holland
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom431; (1955)57BOMLR405; ILR1955Bom520
ORDER1. This revision application arises out of an. application filed by the petitioners under Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act for arrears of wages for a period 1-1-1350 to 21-9-1951, and also in the-case of some workers for bonus for the years 1947-48, it appears that the factory which employed the petitioners was owned by the opponent up to 7-1-1947. On that date a limited company was incorporated in England in the name of Caulfield Holland & Co., which took over the business of the exponent's factory which was being run in the name of Holland & Co.By an agreement dated 16-1-1947, the opponent was, appointed the managing director of the company and was put in charge of the company's-business which was being done previously by Holland & Co. A man by the name of Hudson was the local manager of this factory and under the Factories Act he was named as the manager. On 6-9-1951, the opponent gave notice to the employees of closure of business and their services were terminated on 21-9-...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrabhagabai Rajaram Vs. Rajaram J. Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Bom91; (1955)57BOMLR946
Desai, J.1. The plaintiff sues for dissolution of her marriage with the defendant on the ground that the defendant had married again before the coming into operation of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, and his second wife was living at the time of the institution of the suit. The parties are Hindus.2. Various allegations were made in the plaint as well as in the written statement and counter-claim of the defendant. But learned counsel for the parties have stated before me that the hearing of the suit may proceed on certain undisputed facts. The facts, which are common ground now, are that the plaintiff was married to the defendant in 1938- The defendant married a second wife in December 1941. The plaintiff continued to reside with the defendant till 1951.Between 1941, that is, after the second marriage of the defendant, and 1951 the plaintiff had four children born of the defendant. It is also common ground that the plaintiff and the defendant have not lived...
Tag this Judgment!Ushadevi Balwant Vs. Devidas Shridhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom239; (1955)57BOMLR275; ILR1955Bom546
ORDER1. There was a compromise decree between the opponent, the landlord, and the petitioner, the tenant, on 16-9-1950. By this compromise decree the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises in suit on or before 31-1-1952. As she failed to do so, the opponent applied for execution on 1-2-1952, and the executing Court ordered possession. The petitioner contended that the compromise decree had created a fresh tenancy and that tenancy was protected by the Rent Act. That contention was rejected by the executing Court.Against that decision the petitioner appealed to the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal. She came to this Court in revision and the revision application was also dismissed, and the High Court directed the executing Court to give effect to the warrant of possession which it had already issued. As the warrant of possession had expired, a fresh warrant of possession was issued by the executing Court and at that stage the petitioner contended that the decree w...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jamnabai Manji Keshavji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom280; (1955)57BOMLR278; 1955CriLJ1052; ILR1955Bom514
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 24th Court, Bombay, acquitting the respondent Jamnabai Manji Keshavji who was charged with having committed an offence under Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, upon an allegation that she refused to comply with a notice given to her by the Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay, by which notice she was required to provide a tap in the room occupied by Mr. Vora in the premises belonging to her. 2. The facts of the case are that there are certain premises belonging to the respondent. The said premises consist of a ground floor and two upper floors. On the ground floor, there are two tenements, one of which consists of one room only and the other has seven rooms. The occupant of the one-room tenement is one Mr. Vora. This room has no water tap in it. The prosecution case is that the area of this room is 390 sq. ft. On the other hand, the respondent's content...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. John Bowman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom305; (1955)57BOMLR345; ILR1955Bom402
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a petition by the Bank of India challenging an attachment levied by the Collector of Bombay under Section 13, Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876, and also requiring the Court to prevent the Collector from selling the properties under attachment.2. It appears that the Bank of India, the petitioners, advanced to the National Tube Wells' Company a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on 14-2-1953. Respondent 3 guaranteed this loan. On 1-11-1951, a contract was arrived at between the State of. Bombay and the National Tube Wells Company with regard to the National Tube Wells Company erecting 400 tube wells in the State of Bombay. Under this contract the tube wells had to be completed by 31-3-1953. On 12-6-1953, another agreement was arrived at between the State of Bombay and the National Tube Wells Company.By this' agreement the Government agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 9,75,000 to the Company. This advance was guaranteed by the various directors of the National Tube Wells Company in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Labour Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom363; (1955)57BOMLR367; ILR1955Bom467; (1955)ILLJ13Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. A short question has been raised in this appeal which however interesting is really not capable of very great elaboration. The petitioners, which are two limited companies, submitted certain draft standing orders to the Commissioner of Labour and the Commissioner certified them with certain, modifications. The petitioners objected to the modifications made by the Commissioner and appealed against his decision.The Appellate, Authority confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Labour, and the petitioners applied for a writ of 'certiorari' against the decision of the appellate authority, and Coyajee J. quashed the order of the appellate authority, and the Commissioner of Labour has come in appeal.2. In order to decide the rights of the parties we have to consider and construe a very short, and in our opinion a very simple Act passed by the Indian Legislature being the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (20 of 1946). The Act is entitled: 'An Act to require empl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›