Mumbai Court July 1954 Judgments
Usman Habib Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom177; (1954)56BOMLR1124; ILR1955Bom251; (1955)IILLJ494Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. A very important question as to the proper construction to be placed upon Section 43(2), Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, arises on this petition, and the few facts which are necessary for the decision of that question may be stated.2. The petitioner is the employee of opponent No. 3, which is a weaving factory, and in June 1952 opponent No. 3 gave notice of a change under Section 42(1). Pursuant to that notice, conciliation proceedings were started and the Conciliator reported the failure of conciliation proceedings on 4-12-1952. An application was made by the petitioner and others to Government for a reference under Section 73 and the Government declined to make the reference. A notice of change was then given by the petitioner and others on 2-9-1953, under Section 42(2). On 29-9-1953, the petitioner sent a statement of the case as required by the Act to the Conciliator and on 2-10-1953, the Conciliator replied that he could not proceed with the conciliation as ...
Tag this Judgment!State Government, Madhya Pradsesh Vs. Bhagirathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1201
1. This appeal has been filed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Special Judge, Nagpur, acquitting the respondent Bhagirathi who was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 165-A, Penal Code for abetting the commission of an offence Under Section 161 'ibid' by sending a letter Ex. P-F to Rajbahadursingh (P.W. 2).2. It is not disputed that Rajbahadursingh (P.W. 2) was the Chief Executive Officer of the Nagpur Janapada and was competent to employ teachers working in primary schools under the Janapada.3. The prosecution case was that the respondent sent two letters (Ex. P-E and Ex, P-F), both dated 16-9-1952, to Raj Bahadur singh. The first letter (Ex. P-E) is the application of the respondent for appointment as a teacher in the Janapada Sabha. In the second letter (Ex. P-F) he offered to pay a bribe of Rs. 100 to Raj Bahadur singh if he provided him with a job of teacher ship. The respondent denied that he wrote or sent those two letters and claimed to...
Tag this Judgment!The State Government Vs. Deodatta Diddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ260
1. This is an appeal by the State Government against the acquittal of the respondent Deodatta Diddi, Agent, Rawanwara Khas Colliery, in the Chhinwara district.2. A complaint was made under Section 39, Mines Act, 1923, by the Chief Welfare Officer (Mines) against Messrs. Karamchand Thapar Bros, as managing agents and owners of Rawanwara Khas Collieries as represented by their Managing Director Indra Mohan Thapar and the respondent Deodatta Diddi as Agent of Rawanwara Khas Colliery.3. The trying Magistrate acquitted both Messrs. Karamchand Thapar and Bros, as well as Deodatta. The State Government has preferred an appeal only against the acquittal of the latter.4. The prosecution was launched against the respondent and Messrs. Karamchand Thapar for the alleged infringement of Rule 3(1) of the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946. The aforesaid rules were made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (bb) of Section 30, Mines Act, 1923, and were publishe...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Janardan Kulkarni Vs. Jinnappa Shiddappa Samayi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR272
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is a permanent tenant of defendant No. 2 and the suit came to be filed by the plaintiff under the following circumstances. The land in question is survey No. 184 of Yemakamnardi and the landlords were defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and on partition between them the land in question went to the share of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 denied the permanent tenancy of the plaintiff and his case was that the plaintiff was an ordinary tenant and the tenancy was surrendered by the plaintiff in 1938 and that being done, defendant No. 2 gave the tenancy to defendant No. 5 on April 11, 1938. The plaintiff instituted proceedings before a Magistrate under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate did not give any decision and left the parties to agitate their rights in a competent Court. The Magistrate however appointed a receiver of the land in question and the receiver let out th...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabhai Ashabhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom185; (1954)56BOMLR1035
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioners are the owners of a building situated on the Marine Drive and their main grievance is that the Municipality of Bombay, instead of levying a water-tax upon this building, is charging them for water according to measurement, and their contention is that Section 169, City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, which confers that power upon the Commissioner, is invalid.2. It appears that up to 1952 water-tax was levied upon these premises at a particular rate. On 7-5-1952, a meter was installed by the Municipality, and on 8-7-1952, the Municipality submitted to the petitioners a bill in respect of water consumed in the premises and charging them at a particular rate. After that, various bills were submitted : the petitioners refused to pay these bills and went on paying water-tax.Ultimately, on 10-4-1954, a notice was served upon the petitioners by the Assessor and Collector of Municipal Taxes, calling upon them to pay the sum due within a certain time and intimatin...
Tag this Judgment!Champrajbhai Harsurbhai Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR1072
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a petition by the Mulgirasias of the Amreli district and by this petition they challenge the validity of Act XLV of 1953. In substance, the effect of the Act is to deprive the petitioners of their estate, to convert them into occupants within the meaning of the Land Revenue Code and to make them liable to pay land revenue. Now, the Act is challenged on. the same grounds that were urged in challenging the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1953, in Gangadharrao v. State of Bombay : AIR1955Bom28 (Special Application No. 393 of 1954). and we have dealt at some length with the constitutional challenge to that Act. The constitutional challenge is repeated by Mr. Purshottam, but he has urged that various considerations were not examined in that judgment and, therefore, he has sought to elaborate the argument which was urged in that application.2. Now, in the first place Mr. Purshottam has urged that it is erroneous to talk of a Mulgiras estate or tenure. He cont...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimaji Narasu Mane Vs. Vijayasinvrao Ramrao Dale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom195; (1955)57BOMLR60; ILR1955Bom62
Chagla, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jath, against the Raja-saheb of Jath, claiming certain reliefs. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of Section 87-B, Civil P. C. The learned Judge in a well-considered judgment, came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 87-B were invalid by reason of Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India. In taking that view, he referred the cage to us for our opinion under the proviso to Section 113, Civil P. C., and this reference has now come before us.2. Section 87-B which was incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code alter the Constitution was passed by Act II of 1951, applies the provisions of Section 85 and Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 86 to Rulers of any former Indian States; and 'former Indian State' is denned as 'any such Indian State as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Honnappa Parameshwarappa Karki Vs. Annapurnabai Anantrao Bilgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR1111
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application by a debtor who has been adjudicated insolvent under Section 47(1) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act. He made an application to the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act Court that the order of insolvency passed against him be set aside and his debt may be made payable by six annual instalments by giving him a remission of annas 8 in the said debt. The trial Court held that such an application was not maintainable under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act and dismissed it. In my opinion, the learned Judge was right.2. Now, in this case, the debtor has only one creditor. He is a secured creditor and the debt has been reduced and adjusted to Rs. 607-8-0. The Court then found that the income of the debtor and his moveable property were not sufficient to allow this debt to be liquidated by annual instalments not exceeding twelve in number and thereupon the Court made on order of adjudication, Mr. Vaidya's contention is that und...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquistion Officer Vs. Kalyanji Dewji Dharsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR934
TehdolKar J.1. Mr. Mody wishes to examine this witness further with regard to the damage sustained by the claimants by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting other property of the claimants. The plea is that as the land was acquired for use as a cemetery or a burial ground, the vicinity of a cemetery or a burial ground would injuriously affect the value of the remaining land of the claimants.2. Mr. Khandalwalla for the Special Land Acquisition Officer objects to such evidence being led on the ground that a claim for damages sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the other property of the claimants was not put forward at any time before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and it cannot be allowed to be put forward for the first time upon a reference.3. Now, in so far as the facts of this reference are concerned, the claim put forward before the Special Land Acquisition Officer was put forward in a report of Messrs. V.M. Mody & Co., architects; and the rep...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Mahomed Meheralli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom39; (1954)56BOMLR1016; ILR1954Bom1422
Chagla, C.J.1. Respondent 1 was knocked down by a motor cycle belonging to respondent 2 on 14-3-1950, and suffered certain injuries. He filed a suit against the defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000 as damages in respect of those injuries. Respondent 2 was insured against third party risk with the appellant company and on 26-3-1953, a notice was issued to the insurance company under Section 93(2), Motor Vehicles Act.The insurance company took out a chamber summons to be added as a party to the suit. That chamber summons was dismissed. It then took out a notice of motion to be allowed to defend the action in the name of the defendant. This notice of motion was also dismissed by Mr. Justice Coyajee, and it is against this decision that this appeal, is preferred.2. Now, the position under Section 96, Motor Vehicles Act, is that a vicarious liability is cast upon the insurance company in respect of any decree that may be passed against the person in default and who has been insured with t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »