Mumbai Court January 1955 Judgments
State Vs. Kanu Dharma Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom390; (1955)57BOMLR524; 1955CriLJ1333; ILR1955Bom728
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murud, in favour of the respondent Kanu Dharma Patil. 2. The case against the respondent was that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 4, Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947, in that he had prevented Chintu Rama Ambedkar, a Harijan boy, from entering the temple of Shri Bhairi at Waral on 2-5-1953. The accused denied the charge. The learned Magistrate took the view that the charge brought against the accused had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he acquitted the accused of the offence charged. It is this order of acquittal which is challenged before us by Mr. Chandrachud on behalf of the State. It is hardly necessary to begin the judgment with the statement of the law which governs our powers as a Court of appeal in dealing with orders of acquittals. It is now well settled that ordinarily this Court would not b...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Joglekar and ors. Vs. Barsi Light Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom294; (1955)57BOMLR448; ILR1955Bom826; (1955)ILLJ371Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the President, Barsi Light Railway-men's Union on behalf of the workers of the Railway Company, and the petition came to he filed under the following circumstances. The Railway was taken over by the Union of India on 1-1-1954, and on 11-11-1953, a notice was served by the Railway Company terminating the services of all its workmen.Some of the employees filed an application under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act to the Authority under that Act, contending that they had been retrenched by the Railway Company and therefore they were entitled to compensation under Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act. The Authority held on merits in favour of the employees, but ho came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the petitioners.Having come to that conclusion he dismissed the application, and the petitioners have now come to this Court challenging the decision of the Author...
Tag this Judgment!Saipansaheb Wd. Dawoodsaheb Vs. Laxman Venkatesh Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom435; (1955)57BOMLR413; ILR1955Bom577
ORDER1. The question involved in this revision application is in regard to the fixation of standard rent. The property with which we are concerned was leased out by the opponent to the applicants on 8-11-1947, for a period of three years and the rent reserved was Rs. 1,500 a year. The trial Court fixed the standard rent on the basis of this contractual rent. In appeal the learned District Judge has reduced it to Rs. 1,080 and this decision is challenged by the tenant.2. Now, Mr. Datar's contention that it is1 established as a fact that this property was let out on 1-9-1940, at the rent of Rs. 600. As a matter of fact it was let out to this very tenant who has been on the premises ever since then and Mr. Datar says that once the rent at which the premises were let on 1-9-1940 is determined, the standard rent can only be that rent and no other rent, and therefore according to Mr. Datar, the learned District Judge should have fixed the standard rent of these premises at Rs. 600 and not Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Dhondu Jadhav Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom394; (1955)57BOMLR408; ILR1955Bom569
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition raises a rather important question as to the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal under Section 22 of Act XLVIII of 1950, On 21-1-1954, respondents No. 2, the New China Mills gave a notice of change under Section 42 Bombay Industrial Relations Act, with regard to change in items 1 and 4 of Sch. IV to that Act, and in substance the change which the mills intended to bring about was that instead of the workers attending to two sides of ring frames in the Ring Department, the workers had to attend to four sides.Conciliation proceedings were commenced on 28-1-1954, and on 9-9-1954, these proceedings failed and a report to that effect was made by the Conciliator. On 22-9-1954, an application was made by the mills for permission to bring about this change under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act and on 15-10-1954, the Appellate Tribunal gave its permission to the mills. It is this order that is challe...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshed Butt Vs. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ382
R. Kaushalendra Rao, J.1. This appeal Is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation consequent on the findings on the Issues framed as the preliminary issues for trial. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming damages amounting to Rs. 18,000. The claim was based on the allegation that his property was seized wrongfully in criminal case no. 111 of 1947 as belonging to one Sardar Khan who was the accused in that case. According to the plaintiff, he filed an objection under Section 88(6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the entire property attached belonged to him and that Sardar Khan had no interest of any kind in it. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Harda, investigated the claim preferred by the plaintiff and passed an order on 9-3-1948 allowing the objection to the extent of a -/12/- interest in the property seized but disallowing it to the extent of -/4/-. The magistrate sold the properties for Rs. 49,880 and retai...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom1; (1955)57BOMLR288; ILR1955Bom680
Chagla, C.J.1. Petitioners No. 2 carried on the activity of running a crossword competition in Bombay prior to August 1948. After August 1948, they transferred their activity to the State of Mysore and they carried on that activity after obtaining the necessary license from that State. The registered office of the petitioners is situated in Bangalore. They own and run a weekly newspaper called the Sporting Star.This paper is printed and published in Bangalore and it contains a crossword prize competition called the R. M. D. C. Crosswords for which entries are received from various parts of India including the State of Bombay. The petitioners have agents and depots in various places in the territory of India, including the State of Bombay, to collect entry forms and fees for being forwarded to the petitioners at Bangalore. The petitioners advertise their crossword prize competition in various publications in various places in India including the State of Bombay.The Legislature of the St...
Tag this Judgment!Goilisaheb Haji Vs. Tarachand Bapuchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom200
1. This is a revisional application by the plaintiff and it has been preferred against the order passed by the learned District Judge confirming the trial Court's order on the application made by the petitioner in the suit. In his suit for declaration and injunction the petitioner applied for interim injunction. He obtained an ex parte rule on that application, but ultimately the rule was discharged and the injunction was dissolved.The petitioner then preferred an appeal, but his appeal was dismissed. That is why he has come to tills Court and the main argument which has been urged on his behalf by Mr. Javali with considerable emphasis is that, in dealing with the interlocutory application for injunction, the Courts below have not considered the most important question as to who was in possession at the date of the suit.Ordinarily the question of possession plays an important part in the decision of applications for interim injunction in pending suits and Mr. Javali no doubt is justifi...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Lachman Kevalram Ahuja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR777
Yyas J.1. [His Lordship after considering the evidence in the case proceeded.] Accordingly the convictions of both the accused under Section 394 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code, under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, under Section 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, is perfectly correct. Since we have come to the conclusion on evidence that accused No. 1 had carried and fired revolvers and accused No. 2 had carried and fired a pistol, and since they had no licence to carry and possess fire-arms, their convictions under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 68(7) of the Bombay District Police Act are also correct. In the result, Appeals Nos. 1408 and 1423 of 1953 fail and are dismissed.2. We next proceed to deal with Criminal Revisional Application No. 1074 of 1953 filed by the State. This revisional application raises the question whether the sentences of transportation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›