Mumbai Court December 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.
U.D. Patel and Co. Vs. C.M. Milligam and Clarke Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom598
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plain-tiffs against the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court refusing to grant an injunction as prayed by them. It appears that between the plaintiffs and the defendants two proceedings are at present pending. The respondents have filed a petition in the City Civil Court on 23-6-1955.This petition has been filed under Section 5, Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 6 of 1937. The respondents' case is that a foreign award has been validly made between them and the appellants and they want the City Civil Court to pass a decree In terms of this award. While the petition was pending in the trial Court, the appellants filed their suit No. 2554 of 1955.In this suit fine appellants in substance contend that a decree in terms of the foreign award should not be passed and they have made several allegations in support of this prayer. It is a suit filed to obtain a permanent injunction restraining the respondents Irani taking...
Jivraj Joharmal Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom719; 1956CriLJ1311
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition challenges an order made by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona, under Section 57, Bombay Police Act. In our opinion the order is unsustainable. The order directed the externment of the petitioner who is doing business as a money lender and who is a man of substance and of property. It appears that three prosecutions were launched against him in respect of three articles seized from him.Originally 2,000 articles were seized, the rest were returned, and the three prosecutions were confined to these three articles and the charge in each of these prosecutions was under Section 411, I. P. C. Two of the prosecutions failed in appeal and the petitioner was acquitted. The third was confirmed in appeal, although the sentence was reduced. A notice under Section 59 was served upon the petitioner on 9-5-1955. He filed his written statement and then the order challenged was ultimately passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona.2. The approach of the Addi...
R.S. Patil Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom758
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner, who is the landlord, succeeded both before the Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer in establishing that his tenant the first opponent had committed default in payment of rent for three years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 and that he was entitled to an order for eviction. In revision the Revenue Tribunal reversed the decision of the two lower tribunals and dismissed the landlord's application. The landlord has now come before us under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Mr. Datar's contention is that the Revenue Tribunal has interfered with the finding of fact. Tile Revenue Tribunal was conscious of it. The reason why it interfered with that finding is that, according to it, that finding was perverse and if that finding was perverse, undoubtedly the Tribunal had Jurisdiction to interfere with it. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is fully justified. Both before the Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer the tenant relied on five receipts in order to esta...
Mallappa Changbasappa Warad Vs. Asian Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom595
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the order passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing his application for interim injunction made under Order 39, Rule 1, and Section 151 of the Code. The application for interim injunction was made by the plaintiff in his own suit where the plaintiff claimed partition by metes and bounds of his share in the ancestral properties of the family. The plaintiff is the son of Chanbasappa Warad and Parvatibai Warad. He has impleaded his parents as defendants 1 and 2 and his grandmother Gavaravvabai as defendant 3 to the suit. Though in form this is a suit for partition, in substance it is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity and binding character of several debts contracted by his father. That is why the principal prayer in the suit is that the debts contracted by his father, most of which have matured into decrees passed by civil Courts, do not bind his share. By the application for interim injunction, the ...
Shiddappa Basappa Bagi Vs. Rugnath Trikamdas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom596
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned City Civil Court Judge dismissing the notice of motion taken out by the appellant to Bet aside an ex parte decree passed against him in a summary suit under the provisions of Order 37.This notice of motion was rejected on the ground that the conduct of the defendant throughout the proceedings in the trial Court showed that he was only bidding for time and that he was really not prevented from taking part in the proceedings by any genuine or sufficient reason. The learned Judge has also found that the defendant was disposing of his properties presumably with a view to make the execution of the decree more difficult. He was in fact not satisfied with the 'bona fides' of the defendant.2. This summary suit was filed on 13-11-1954. In this suit the plaintiff claimed Rs. 13,000/- on a writing executed on 7-8-1954 and two dishonoured cheques. Summons was served on the defendant at Byadgi and on 11-4-1955 he appeared by Mr. Malimath....
The State Vs. Azizkhan Subedarkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom680; 1956CriLJ1294
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the state of Bombay against an order of acquittal passed by the Second Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1955.1a. The accused Azijkhan Subedarkhan was found drunk and unconscious and lying on a public road in the Khanpur area in the town of Ahmedabad. On receiving information, the Sub-Inspector of Police Khanpur went to the place where the accused was lying. The accused was searched and a Rampuri knife was found on his person. The same was attached under a panchanama. Thereafter, the accused was charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 135, Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty.Before the trial Court, a copy of the notification dated 16-10-1953 issued by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 37(1), Bombay Police Act, 22 of 1951, was produced and exhibited as Ex. 1-B. The prosecution also led the evidence of Sub-Inspector Vaishnav of the Police Station at Khanpur who depose...
MervIn Albert Veiyra Vs. C.P. Fernandes and anr. Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom100; (1956)58BOMLR385; ILR1956Bom585
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner is one of the employees of the second respondent company, who, along with seve-ral others, were served with a notice on the 23rd October 1953 by which the second respondent company intimated to them that they proposed to lay-off these employees owing to certain difficulties which might result in the stoppage of work. On the 24th October 1953 an Ordinance was promulgated which provided for compensation for lay-off and compensation for retrenchment. The provisions of this Ordinance were ultimately incorporated, in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as Chapter VA, Some of these employees were reinstated. With regard to the rest, including the petitioner a notice of termination of service was served upon them on the 28th September 1954. The second respondent company then approached the Labour Appellate Tribunal, before which certain' disputes between the second respondent company and its employees were pending, for permission to discharge these employees. The...
State Vs. Yamanappa Limbaji Pandhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR551
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from an appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur, acquitting the respondent Yamanappa Limbaji Pandhare, who was convicted of an offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, III Court, Sholapur.2. This appeal raises a question of construction of Section 31 of the Bombay Police Act No. XXII of 1951 and the question has arisen in this way. The respondent Yamanappa Limbaji Pandhare, whom I shall hereafter refer to as the accused, was originally serving as a head constable in the Police Department. On April 3, 1954, he was dismissed from service. During the tenure of his service he was provided with quarters in room No. 45 of Block No. 3 in 'A' Division Police Lines, Sholapur. After his dismissal the accused applied to the District Superintendent of Police, Sholapur, on April 25, 1954, for permission to stay on in the abovementioned premises. On May 3, 1954, the Di...
Arantee Manufacturing Corporation Vs. Bright Bolts Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1955
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas758(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by Arantee Manufacturing Corporation, a partnership firm (plaintiffs) against Bright Bolts Private Limited (defendants) for an order that the arbitration agreement contained in clause 12 of the sole selling agency agreement, copy whereof has been annexed as exhibit F to the petition, be filed in this court and for an order of reference referring all disputes and differences between the plaintiffs and the defendants relating to the sole selling agency agreement to the arbitration of tan arbitrator in accordance with clause 12 of the said agreement and for incidental reliefs. 2. The petition is filed in the following circumstances: The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants, who are a private limited company manufacturing nuts, bolts, screws and hardware, had negotiations with them for the purpose of appointing them as their sole selling agents for the goods manufactured by them throughout India, that between the beginning of October, 1964,...
State Vs. Maganlal Chunilal Bogawat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom354; 1956CriLJ701
Shah, J.1. Manganlal Chunilal Bogawat is carrying on business In Ahmednagar as a tailor. The town of Ahmednagar is served by the Ahmednagar Electric Supply Co. Ltd., by supplying electric energy for lighting purposes and for motive power for mechanical and other uses: The Ahmednagar Electric Supply Co. Ltd., has its head office to Bombay and has a local Manager stationed in Ahmednagar.The Company supplies electric energy to consumers for lighting purposes as well as for motive power for other uses. The accused Bogawat had obtained two separate connections in his shop with the service of the Company. One was a connection for lighting purposes and the other was for use as motive power and heating.On 8-1-1953, two employees of the Company, Pardeshi and Bhingardive went to the shop of Bogawat at about 7-15 p.m. and checked the two meters which were fixed one above the other, one for the lighting circuit and the other for the motive power circuit. They noticed, that all the lights in the sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »