Mumbai Court April 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.
State Vs. Trimbak Dhondu Bhoir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR541
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A rather important question under the Bombay Prohibition Act arises in this appeal which is preferred by the State against acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge, Thana, The accused was charged under Section 85(1)(3) of the Prohibition Act and he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to 1 day's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default simple imprisonment for one week. The accused appealed and the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. The State has preferred this appeal, as according to the State, it raises a principle and also an important question of the interpretation of Section 85(2)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. Section 85, as the marginal note indicates, deals with the penalty for being drunk and for disorderly behaviour and Sub-section 1 of that section provides:Whoever in any street or thoroughfare or public place or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access-(1) is drunk and incapab...
Shripati Raoji Khopare Vs. Vishwanath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom457; (1955)57BOMLR840; ILR1955Bom1033
1. This appeal is concerned with the question of validity of an alienation made by one Laxmibai on 6-4-1908. Laxmibai was the widow of one Vasudeo. Vasudeo and Ramchandra were two separate brothers. Ramchandra died in 1917, Vasudeo having died previously in 1903. Ram-chandra left a widow Gangabai, but no son, and the widow Gangabai adopted one Vishwanath as a son to her deceased husband in 1922.Gangabai died in 1927 and Laxmibai died in 1941. Vasudeo had left certain immoveable property consisting of some seven lands, including the suit land, which is Survey No. 654. Between 1904 and 1906 Laxmibai sold six lands to several persons and in 1908, she sold the suit land to one Narayan for a sum of Rs. 200/-.The sale-deed recites that Laxmibai required the amount for going upon a pilgrimage to Kashi. On 11-2-1949, Vishwanath filed the present suit challenging the several alienations made by Laxmibai and the basis of his claim was that the alienations were not supported by legal necessity an...
P.L. Mayekar and anr. Vs. Amichand Narayan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom30; (1955)57BOMLR1000; ILR1956Bom26
Chagla, C. J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of Coyajee J. by which he quashed an order passed by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal, and he came to make the order under the following circumstances. Appellants 1 and 2 were employees of respondent 1 and they were dismissed prior to 1952. Certain demands were put forward by the Labour Union of which the appellants were members and among the demands were reinstatement of these two dismissed employees, and the Government referred all these demands to the Industrial Court under Section 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act.On 18-6-1953, the Industrial Tribunal made an award and directed respondent 1 to reinstate the appellants from the date of their dismissal. There was an appeal to the Industrial Appellate Tribunal and on 19-1-1954, the Industrial Appel-late Tribunal confirmed the award made by the Industrial Tribunal. The employer, respondent 1, challenged this award before Coyajee J., and his contention was that the Government had n...
Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. Vs. Manubhai Motilal VIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom463; (1955)57BOMLR907; ILR1955Bom921
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition raises a rather interesting question as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try A certain industrial dispute. The facts are very brief. Opponent 5 was employed by the petitioner mills in their branch office in Bombay and his services were terminated on 27-8-1953, when the branch office was closed, lie wrote to the registered office of the mills in Ahmedabad complaining, of his dismissal and claiming to be reinstated. No reply was sent to this letter and respondent 5 filed an application before the Labour Court for reinstatement and compensation. A point was raised by the petitioner that the Labour Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the application made by respondent 5, and the Labour Court made a reference to the Industrial Court under Section 81, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the Industrial Court has held that the Bombay Labour Court had jurisdiction. It is against that decision that the petitioner has come on thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›