Mumbai Court October 1955 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahadu Laxman and anr. Vs. Hanamati Sakharam and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom624
1. The third plaintiff Chandulal Chunilal who was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his father sold S. Nos. 115, 35/1A and 85/2 of the village of Borwali, Taluka Mangaon, to plaintiffs 1 and 2 by a deed dated 3-3-1944. Plaintiff 3 sold the property as if he was absolute owner thereof.Thereafter the three plaintiffs filed suit No. 158 of 1945 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Roha, against the defendant who was originally a tenant of the joint family of plaintiff 3 alleging that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a proper notice to quit and the defendant had failed and neglected to vacate and deliver possession of the property when demanded.2. The defendant by his written statement denied the plaintiff's ownership of the suit lands. He contended that the lands did not belong to the plaintiffs. He further contended that some of the suit lands belonged to the defendant as ancestral lands and the other lands were purchased by him in t...
Sapta Koteshwar Godat Goa Endowment (Trust) Vs. Ramchandra Vasudeo Kit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom615
1. The plaintiff claiming to be the wahiwatdar of Shri Sapt-Koteshwar Deo filed civil suit No. 464 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Shahapur, against the defendants for a decree for possession of two rooms in a house belonging to the deity, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in his wahiwat, and for recovery of costs of the suit.It was the plaintiff's case that the property in suit is a part of their property C. S. No. 1229, that the property originally belonged to one Vyankaji Mahadev Kittur who by his will dated 19-5-1898 dedicated the property together with other properties to Shri Saptkoteshwar Deo of Goa. Under the will one Nagesh Pandurang and others were appointed executors and trustees for management.In 1913 there were disputes between Nagesh Pandurang and other executors and Nagesh Pandurang filed suit No. 13 of 1913 in the Court of the District Judge, Belgaum, for removal of the defendants Rayappa Dashara...
Vithal Tulsiram Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom123; 1956CriLJ376
Vyas, J.1. This is an application in revision by Vithal Tulsiram, who was originally accused 1, from an order of conviction under Sections 4 (a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.2. The facts which led up to the prosecution of this applicant along with others are very few. On 22-12-1954, Sub-Inspector Welling called a bogus punter of the name of Hiralal Govind and in the presence of the panchas gave him a marked eight-anna coin. The bogus punter was instructed to go to house No. 14, Roshan Building, 4th Marine Street at Dhobi Talao.The bogus punter was directed to lay a bet with any person who might happen to be found in house No. 14 and the direction was that the bet was to be laid on figures 1 to 2. Accordingly, the bogus punter went to house No. 14, Roshan Building, and when he went there he found that the present applicant was present in that house. The bogus punter gave his name as Hiralal and a...
Crijvallabhadas Girdharlal Modi Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom128
Dixit, J.1. The applicant is the owner of a field bearing Section No. 1038 situated at Dhandhuka in the Ahmeda-bad District. The second opponent was a tenant of the applicant and on 27-3-1950 the applicant gave a notice to the second opponent asking that the second opponent should hand over the said field to the applicant by 1-4-1951.As the second opponent failed to comply with the notice, the applicant filed an application before the Tenancy Aval Karkun. Dhandhuka, claiming possession under Section 29, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural bands Act, 1948, The Extra Aval Karkun allowed the application made by the applicant and directed that the possession of the suit land should be handed over to the applicant after the appeal period was over.Prom the order made by the Aval Karkun, the tenant went in appeal before the Assistant Collector, Dholka Prant, Dholka, and the authority reversed the order of the Aval Karkun and held that the possession of the tenant should not be disturbed. Prom the...
Pandu Khandu Vs. Narayan Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom162
1. The defendant was a tenant in the year 1943 of Section Nos. 2 and 234/1. The plaintiff purchased the lands in 1944 from the owner thereof and thereafter served a notice upon the defendant terminating his tenancy as from 1-4-1945. The defendant having failed to vacate and deliver possession the plaintiff filed suit No. 38 of 1945 in the Court of the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The suit was compromised on 12-7-1945, and the defendant was permitted to remain in occupation of the lands till the crops which had been planted by him in the lauds were removed.It was also provided by the decree that the plaintiff was to have possession of the lands after removal of the crops by the defendant. In April 1946 the plaintiff sought to enforce the order of the Mamlatdar after the defendant had removed the crops. But the defendant objected to the delivery of possession. The objection raised by the defendant was then heard by the Mamlatdar and the same was overruled, and warrant for p...
Sadashiv Devji Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom168; 1956CriLJ382
Dixit, J.1. Five accused persons, including the present applicant who was accused No. 1 in the Court below, were prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, for offences under Sections 4(a) & 5, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.Upon the evidence adduced before him, the learned Magistrate convicted the present applicant of the offences under Sections 4 (a) and 5 of the Act and sentenced him as regards the charge-under Section 4 (a) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month, but ho did not impose a separate sentence against the applicant under Section 5 though he convicted him of that offence.Feeling aggrieved by the convictions and the sentence imposed upon him, the first accused has come up in revision and upon his behalf Mr. I.C. Dalai has contended that the convictions and the sentence imposed upon the first ...
Premaraj Pannalal Shop Vs. Sadabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom248
1. This appeal arises out of an application filed to set aside the auction sale of City Nos. 3114, 3115 and 115 of the town of Ahmednagar. The auction was held on 19-8-1952 in enforcement of a decree obtained in Special Suit No. 25 of 1934. The three properties were sold for Rs. 7500/- and were purchased by respondent 1. In the sale proclamation which was framed by the Court after hearing objections of the parties, an encumbrance of Rs. 40,000 was shown on C.S. No. 1155 and an encumbrance of Rs. 45,000/- was shown on C.S. Nos. 3114 and 8115.At the auction each of the properties C. S. Nos. 3114 and 3115 was sold for Rs. 3200/- and C. S. No. 115 was sold for Rs. 1100/-. The auction purchaser who was the plaintiff in Special Suit No. 25 of 1934 purchased the right, title and Interest of judgment-debtor 2A. After the sale was completed an application was filed by the appellant, who was also defendant 1 in Suit No. 25 of 1934 for setting aside the sale on the ground that he was entitled to ...
The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad Vs. the Labour Appellate Tri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom746; (1956)58BOMLR26; ILR1956Bom247; (1957)IILLJ435Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. There was a dispute between the Textile workers in Ahmedabad and the Millowners' Association and in regard to those disputes and future disputes there was a submission in arbitration on 31-7-1952. On 9-9-1953 respondent 2 company gave a notice to its workers to close down the second shift from 10-10-1953.On 2-10-1953 the petitioners, who are the Textile Labour Association, wrote to respondent 2 company pointing out that the action that they sought to take was covered by the general submission made on 31-7-1952 and before closing down this shift they should have the matter adjudicated upon by the arbitrators. Respondent 2 company did not accept this contention of the petitioners and the second shift was closed down from 10-10-1953.At that time an industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the petitioners made a complaint under Section 23, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, that respondent 2 company had dismissed its employees ...