Mumbai Court February 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.
The Borough Municipality Vs. Chimanlal Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR501
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a second appeal arising from a suit which had been filed by the respondent for a declaration that the assessment made by the appellant municipality of house-tax in respect of the year 1950-51 was illegal inasmuch as the assessment had been increased as compared to what it was in the previous year and yet no notice was given to him. The respondent prayed besides that the amount of excess tax which the municipality levied and which according to him came to Rs. 175-11-0 be refunded to him. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court uphold this contention and the appellant-municipality has come in appeal.2. Now, a preliminary objection which has been taken is that no second appeal lies inasmuch as the suit which had been filed by the respondent is a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the amount or valuation of the subject-matter being loss than Rs. 500 no second appeal lies.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that when the resp...
Shankar Shiddappa Kore Vs. Jaysingrao Lingojirao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR505
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an appeal arising from a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of S. No. 264/2 of the village of Ankli in Taluka Chikodi. The land was Inam land and originally belonged to defendant No. 1 Jayasingrao, who got it converted into rayatava land on October 27, 1947. He sold it to the plaintiff on March 9, 1949, for Rs. 11,000. It was his case however that the agreement of sale had taken place on December 1, 1948, and the sale was effected in pursuance of the agreement. The contesting defendant was defendant No. 2 and he claimed that the sale deed was void as being in contravention of Section 64 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Defendant No. 1 admitted that he sold the land to the plaintiff but said that he had received only Rs. 10,500 for it and not Rs. 11,000. He said that he could not hand over possession to the plaintiff because defendant No. 2 was a protected tenant. So far as the question of the agreement was concerned, he supported defendant No. 2's c...
K.L. Gauba Vs. J. Vasica
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom34; (1955)57BOMLR941
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a suit filed by a barrister-at-law for the recovery of his fees. The work in respect of which these fees became payable was done by him partly in the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court at Bombay and partly in the Simla High Court, and he appeared, acted and pleaded for the defendant in all these matters.2. A preliminary issue, being issue No. 2, has been raised as to whether the plaintiff being a barrister is entitled to maintain this suit. As this issue was of considerable importance to the Original Side Bar, I directed that a notice be given to the Advocate-General and the Bar Association, and in response to the notice the Advocate-General has appeared at the hearing of this issue.2a. Now, it is common ground that the plaintiff who is a Barrister was enrolled as an advocate on the Original Side of this High Court in March 1948. Section 9, Bar Councils Act empowers the Bar Council, with the previous sanction of the High Court, to make rules to regulate the adm...
B.G. Chavan Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom334; (1955)57BOMLR421; ILR1955Bom584
Chagla, C.J.1. The councillors of the Nippani Borough Municipality were elected in June 1951 for a period of three years. That was the life of the municipality under S. 25(1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. On 22-9-1951, opponent No. 3 was elected the president of the municipality and the resolution electing him specified the period of his office as three years. His office expired on 21-9-1954. On 22-9-1954, the Collector gave notice of a meeting to elect his successor and that meeting was to be held on 9-10-1954. On 8-10-1954, the Collector postponed the meeting and the petitioner and some other councillors objected to the postponement of the meeting. A representation was sent to the Collector and he was asked to hold another meeting. The Collector refused to convene a meeting. A reminder was sent to the Minister of Local Self-Government on 29-10-1954, which also met with the same fate, and ultimately the petitioner has come before us on this petition for a 'mandamus' dire...
Gambhirji Odharaj Vs. Bind Basni Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom369; (1955)57BOMLR456; ILR1955Bom740; (1955)IILLJ202Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition raises a rather important question as to the construction of Section 115A, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.The Sidhpur Mills, respondents No. 3 before us, closed some of their departments on 10-12-1950, and continued the closure till 28-2-1951, and in these three months they played off some of their employees. Playing off is a technical term in industry & we understand that what it means is that due to the closure of certain departments some of the employees are asked to work for less hours than they were working before the closure and these employees are paid on the basis of the less work done by themOn 24-3-1951, 98 employees of the Sidhpur Mills approached the mills in respect of their compensation for being played off under the proviso to Section 42(4), and on 15-5-1951 they applied to the Labour Court in respect of this compensation. This application was No. 450 of 1951. On 25-5-1951, the Mazdoor Mahajan Sangh also applied to the Labour Court in ...
The State Vs. Andheri-marol-kurla Bus Service
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom324; (1955)57BOMLR529; 1955CriLJ1161; ILR1955Bom602; (1955)ILLJ378Bom
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, in favour of the respondents.The respondents are the Andheri-Marol-Kurla Bus Service, its partners and the manager respectively. The Bus Service Company itself is accused No. 1, Amichand Narayan, Karamchand Narayan and Validad Hazrat Hussein, the three partners of the Company are accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 whereas the manager H.M. Khan is accused No. 5.The charge against these accused persons was that they had committed an offence under Section 31(1) and Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947. The learned Magistrate' has held that the charge framed against these accused persons has not been proved. That is why he has acquitted them of the said charge. The propriety and the correctness of this order of acquittal are challenged by the State in the present appeal.2. The facts essential for the decision of this dispute lie within a very narrow compas...
Shrirang Maruti Falake Vs. Tanubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR418
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner, who is the debtor, filed an application for the adjustment of his debts in 1917 and in this application he challenged, among others, two transactions of sale contending that they were mortgages. One was a transaction of 1930. According to the petitioner he had sold his property to one Balwant. Balwant sold that property to opponent No. 1 Tanubai and Tanubai on November 29, 1945, executed a gift deed in respect of this property in favour of her brother Bala, opponent No. 2. The second transaction challenged was a transaction of 1921. That transaction was a transaction of ostensible sale by the petitioner in favour of Gangaram the husband of opponent No. 1. On the death of Gangaram, Tanubai succeeded to his property as his heir and she also transferred this property to her brother by the same deed of gift dated November 29, 1945. Notice was served upon opponent No. 2, he failed to appear, and the preliminary issues under Section 17 of the Bombay Agricu...
Vasant Shamrao Khot Vs. Jagannath Ganesh Jambotkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom450; (1955)57BOMLR416; ILR1955Bom589
ORDER1. The applicant is a decree-bolder and he obtained the decree on 20-1-1941, for Rs. 1,600. The judgment-debtor is an employee in the Burma Shell Company and is drawing a salary between Rs. 400 and Rs. 500, and the judgment-debtor applied for the appointment of a Receiver of the salary of the debtor to the extent that it is permissible under Section 60 of Civil P. C. This notice was discharged by the Small Causes Court Judge, and the decree-holder has come in revision.2. Now, under Section 60 the salary to the extent of the first hundred rupees and one hall of the remainder is not subject to attachment and even with regard to the salary of an employee who is not a Government servant or a servant of a railway company it is exempt from attachment until it is actually paid. Now, in effect, what the decree-holder wanted was to attach the salary as and when it became due and payable. Therefore by means of this equitable mode of execution the decree-holder wanted to deprive the judgment...
Darbar Saheb Surangwala of Jetpur Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom275; (1955)57BOMLR286; ILR1955Bom581
Chagla, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the ex-Ruler of the State of Jetpur in the Saurashtra State and he filed a suit in this Court against the defendants claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000 paid in respect of a policy effected by the defendants on the ground that the policy had been effected by misrepresentation and that the plaintiff was entitled to avoid that policy. After the suit was filed he took out a chamber summons for examination on commission of himself and his wife. On that summons the learned Judge made no order, and it is against that decision that this appeal is preferred.2. Mr. Jhaveri has taken two preliminary objections to the maintainability of this appeal. The first is that the decision of the learned Judge does not constitute a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent and therefore the appeal does not lie, and the second objection is that the appeal is barred by limitation. As in our opinion the question that has been raised on merits is of considerable importan...
Ramchandra Hanmant Vs. Balaji Dattu Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom291; (1955)57BOMLR491; ILR1955Bom837
Chagla, C.J.1. Second Appeal No. 940 of 1952 which has been referred to a full bench raises the vexed question of the right of an adopted son to divest the property which has already become vested, and the very few facts which are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the question that has been raised are that Balaji and Ramchandra were two brothers. They were separate and Balaji had predeceased Ramchandra. Ramchandra died on 10-10-1903, leaving his widow Tarabai who died shortly after him on 12-10-1903. Ramchandra had a son by the name of Hanmant who had predeceased both his parents and he had left a widow by the name of Sitabai. Balaji had a son named Dattu who died on 20-1-1916, and Balaji the defendant is the adopted son of Dattu. Sitabai adopted the plaintiff as a son to her husband on 21-1-1945. Ramchandra left certain 'vatan' lands which went to Dattu on the death of Tarabai and on Dattu's death Balaji on his adoption went into possession of those lands, and the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›