Mumbai Court June 1954 Judgments
Ganpatrao Sitaram Borlikar Vs. Shridhar Mukund Polekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom64; (1954)56BOMLR1005; ILR1955Bom57
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a rather unusual decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, and this suit illustrates, if ever a suit did illustrate, the legal ingenuity of litigants to try and make the utmost use of Section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.The defendants in the suit took out proceedings under Chap. 7, Small Cause Courts Act, for the ejectment of the plaintiff. Their contention waa that the plaintiff was their tenant, but they became entitled to possession by reason of defaults committed by him under Section 108(4). T. P. Act. The application of the defendants succeeded and they got an order of ejectment on 4-12-1950. Time was given to the plaintiff to vacate by 31-3-1951. The plaintiff appealed against this order and this appeal was dismissed on 31-1-1951.On 6-4-1951, the plaintiff took out a notice tor recording a compromise of the ejectment order, and the compromise he put forward was that pending his appeal the defendants had ag...
Tag this Judgment!Basantlal Banarsilal Vs. Bansilal Dagdulal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom35; (1954)56BOMLR1000; ILR1955Bom49
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, setting aside an award on a petition made for that purpose by the opponents. On 7-11-1951, ,the appellant was employed by the respondent as a 'pueca adatia' to effect certain transactions in groundnuts, linseed, castor seeds and gold. On 26-2-1952, two transactions of purchase were outstanding. One was of 300 tons of groundnuts and the other was of 25 tons of linseed. Both these were forward transactions for April-May delivery. The case of the respondent was that he gave instructions to the appellant to close the transaction on 26-2-1952.In fact the appellant closed it on 5-3-1952, and his allegation was that he was asked to close the transaction on that date. As a result of the closing of the transaction on 5-3-1952, certain ' amount became due by the respondent to the appellant. In respect of this a dispute arose and dispute was referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Bombay O...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchand Hirachand Kothadiya and ors. Vs. District Deputy Collector, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom154; (1954)56BOMLR940; ILR1954Bom1404
Chagla, C.J.1. These are three petitions by the residents of the village Nira, challenging the rejection 'of the nomination papers submitted by them offering themselves as candidates for the triennial election of the Nira Gram Panchayat scheduled to be held on 15-7-1954.2. Dealing with the first petition which is Spl. C. A. No. 1231 of 1954, the nomination paper on scrutiny was accepted by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 4 went in appeal to the Prant Officer and the Prant Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified to be a member of the Village Panchayat and, therefore, ho rejected his nomination paper.3. Now in the first place Mr. Tarkunde contended that there was no right of appeal given to any higher authority from the action of the Returning Officer in accepting a nomination paper. Mr. Tarkunde says that the right of appeal only arises if a nomination paper is rejected and that view Is supported byRule 10 of the rules framed under Section 108(c), V...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarao Narayanrao Chawate Vs. Shankar Sahadev Mungekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR973
Desai, J.1. [His Lordship, after narrating the facts and dealing with the evidence in the case, proceeded]:-I now pass to the legal contention which was pressed before me at the very outset of the hearing of this case by Mr. Jethmalani, learned Counsel for the defendant, The contention was that the suit was not maintainable as the dissolved firm of Cipra Bakelite Co. in which plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant were partners had not boon registered under the Partnership Act. The argument was that this was a suit substantially by plaintiff No. 1 who was suing to enforce a right arising from a contract and also to enforce a right conferred by the Partnership Act and fell within the purview of Section 69(1) of that Act which is as follows :69.(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person being as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Ramcharan and ors. Vs. M.N. Nagrashna and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom537; (1954)56BOMLR930; ILR1954Bom1389; (1954)IILLJ703Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. These two petitions are on behalf of the employees of the Watch and Ward Department, in one case of the Rohit Mills, Ahmedabad, and in the other case of the Rajnagar Spinning, Weaving & , Ahmedabad. These employees made an application on 23-9-1953, to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages which according to them had been delayed; and in the case of the Rohit Mills the claim was with regard to wages from 1-1-1951, to 31-12-1952, and with regard to the other mill the claim was with regard to wages from 1-1-1951, to 30-6-1953; The basis of the claim was that the lights of these employees were governed by the Factories Act and under the provisions of the Factories Act, inasmuch as they had worked more than eight hours a day, they were entitled to overtime due.Admittedly, the claim was made in respect of most of the wages six months beyond their becoming due, and as under Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, a claim made after six months is barred,...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Chhaganlal Gujerathi Vs. Chopda Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom182; (1954)56BOMLR994; ILR1955Bom42
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit field by certain residents of the town of Chopda in the District of East Khandesh against the Chopda Electric Supply Company, Ltd., for a declaration that a 'standing charge' of Rs. 2 for every 25 K.W. sought to be levied by the Chopda Electric Supply Company, Ltd., which I will hereafter refer to as the defendant-company, from every consumer of electricity for domestic or general use was illegal and for an injunction restraining the defendant-company from discontinuing the supply of electricity for non-payment of the charge and for costs of the suit. The suit was filed under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C., as a representative suit on behalf of all consumers for domestic use in the town of Chopda.2. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs' suit. In appeal to the District Court at Jalgaon the appeal filed by the defendant-company was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 have, come to this Court in second a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›