Mumbai Court August 1955 Judgments
Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. Vs. K.P. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom273; (1955)57BOMLR1138; ILR1955Bom1095
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the power of Government to refer or not to refer a dispute to a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act under Section 12(5).2. On 17-11-1953 the Union representing the workers of the appellant company gave an intimation to the company that their workers made certain demands with regard to gratuity, paid holidays, classification of certain workmen and payment of bonus. A copy of these demands was forwarded to the Labour Commissioner. On 6-12-1953 the Appellant company declared a bonus which was three months of the basic pay of the workers. This bonus was not accepted by the Union.Conciliation proceedings were started on 29-4-1954 and the conciliation having failed a report was made by the Conciliation Officer on 5-7-1854. The report only dealt with the question of bonus and classification. On both those points the Conciliation Officer was of the opinion that there was considerable substance in the demands put forward ...
Tag this Judgment!Khalil Ahmed Shaikh Vs. Post Master General, Bombay Circle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR231
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. An application is made in this Court to exempt the appellant from depositing Rs. 500 as security for costs in respect of the appeal which he proposes to prefer to this Court. Mr. Latifi appears on behalf of the appellant. This is an appeal from the Original Side. Mr. Latifi is not instructed by an attorney. He says that he is instructed by Mr. Hegde who is an advocate of the Supreme Court, and his contention is that lie has a right to appear instructed by Mr. Hegde. As the right claimed by Mr. Latifi raised important questions affecting the rights of the Bar and of the attorneys, we directed that a notice should be given to the Advocate General, the Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society. In response to that notice the Advocate General has appeared, Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas has appeared on behalf of the Bar Association, Mr. Maneksha on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, and Mr. Banaji on behalf of the Bar Council, and we are thankful ...
Tag this Judgment!Devakka Fakirraddi Konnaraddiyavar and anr. Vs. Giraddi Ramaraddi Konn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom99
Dixit, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is whether defendant 1 is the adopted son of one Fakirraddi Bhimaraddi. The facts giving rise to the suit from which this appeal arises may be shortly stated.2. One Fakirraddi Bhimaraddl was a resident of Siddapur in the Dharwar District. He was the owner of the property in suit. He married one Kamalawa, who is the present plaintiff, in or about the year 1936. Prom the plaintiff Fakirraddi had two daughters. In the beginning of 1944, he took one Somavva as his second wife. In November 1944, Fakirraddi was taken ill.He was suffering from fever and he died on 38th December 1944 soilless leaving him surviving his mother Yellavva, two widows, Kamalawa and Somavva, and two daughters who are present appellants. It is the case of the 1st defendant that he had been adopted by Fakirraddi on 12-12-1944 and his case further is that his widow, Kamalawa, executed in his favour a deed of adoption on 28-12-1944. The plaintiff, Kamalawa, disputed the...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottamdas Govindji Halai Vs. B.M. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR1062
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The aasessee is the father of the petitioner and he was assessed to income-tax in the sum of Rs. 40,178-4-0. He failed to pay the amount, and on April 10, 1951, a certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer certifying under Section 46(0) of the Indian Income-tax Act that this amount was due by the assessee, and the certificate was sent to the Collector who is respondent No. 1. On February 1, 1954, the Collector sent a notice of demand to the assessee. The assessee failed to pay the amount and thereupon the Collector issued a warrant of attachment on March 24, 1954. Proclamation of sale was issued on February 25, 1955, and on March 30, 1955, the Collector sold the properties of the assessee which had been attached, which were the tenancy rights and the goodwill in the firm of Indestro Sales & Service Company, of which the assessee was the sole proprietor. The sale did not realise the full amount which the assessee was liable to pay. On June 7, 1955, the Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!The Majoor Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. N.N. Majmudar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom36; (1956)58BOMLR1097; ILR1956Bom73; (1955)IILLJ755Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. An interesting and important question under the Co-Operative Societies Act arises on this petition, which has been fully argued both by counsel for the petitioners & counsel for the second respondent. The petitioners are a Co-operative Society cluing banking business and are registered under the Co-Operative Societies Act. The second respondent was an employee of petitioners and he came to be dismissed, under circumstances which are not relevant, by the petitioners on 11th November 1953, The second respondent applied to the first Respondent, who is the Judge of the Labour Court at Ahmedabad for re-in-statement of the petitioners and compensation. The Petitioners contended that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain that petition. The learned Judge held against the petitioners. The petitioners went in appeal to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court held that no appeal lay from that decision and the petitioners have now come before us under Article 227...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsingh Shriramsingh Vs. Shivrao Krishnarao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom262
Dixit, J.1. The suit, from which this appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff-appellant to recover from the defendant-respondent possession of the suit property. The property in suit consists of two fields bearing Reg. S. Nos. 249 and 250 situate at Nagardevle in the East Khandesh District.The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands are his ancestral property, that his ancestors were in possession of them since before the British Rule and that on 13-11-1946, the defendant wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands, which had then standing crops upon them. The plaintiff's contention is that an order of the Collector dated 17-12-1939, in pursuance of which the defendant took possession, was illegal and ultra vires.2. There was also an alternative claim by the plaintiff on the footing that he was a tenant and that he was entitled to the protection afforded by the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939.3. The plaintiff's suit was resisted by the defendant on several grounds. It...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Maganlal Vs. Binani Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1958Bom15; (1957)59BOMLR1131; ILR1955Bom1089
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr, Justice Coyajee and the appeal came to be filed in the following circumstances: The plaintiffs filed a suit in respect of a contract arrived at between the parties in January 1952. By this contract the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to buy 300 torn of eleelro-litic zinc at the rate of Rs. 171 per cwt. The plaintiffs gave delivery and defendant took delivery of 160 tons under this contract and no dispute survives with regard to tin's quantity. With regard to the balance of 140 tons defendant failed to take delivery, and the plaintiffs sold the same and there was a shortfall. The suit is filed in respect of the shortfall. The learned Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant has come in appeal and the main contention that has been raised by Mr. Manecksha on behalf of the appellant -- which contention was not accepted by Mr. Justice Cuyajee -- was that the transaction in suit is void and ...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Vanmalidas Mehta Vs. Prabhod Pranshankar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom146; (1956)58BOMLR917
1. This is a petition for setting aside an award and although there are numerous grounds on which the validity of the award has been challenged in the view that I take of one of these grounds, viz., that the award has not been made within the time allowed by law, it does not become necessary to set out the various grounds or deal with them. I may also mention -- that in addition to the grounds taken in the petition a submission in law was made at the hearing of this petition that the award is outside the scope of the terms of reference and is therefore void.That again is a matter which it is unnecessary for me to determine on this petition having regard to the opinion I have formed as to this award having been made beyond time.2. A few dates that are material are these. On 14-12-1953 the Petitioner and the Respondent signed a submission paper and two persons were appointed as arbitrators, viz., Mr. D. Harkare and Mr. I. P. Joshi. The Petitioner and the Respondent filed their respective...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Keshav Vs. Prabhakar Balwant and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom45; (1955)57BOMLR1116
1. This is an application for revision from a suit tor ejectment. The Opponent landlord had sued the applicant for recovery of possession of premises on the ground that they were reasonably and bona fide required by the Opponent ior his own use. Before passing a decree in ejectment, under sectioa 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Hates Control Act, 1947, the court has to be satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by reiusing to pass it, and ia order to determine that question it had to consider all the circumstances including the question whether other reasonable accommodation was available ior the landlord or the tenant. The landlord appears to have shown at the trial that there was certain accommodation available to the tenant. That accommodation was not available at the rent which the applicant was paying, but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have found, after taking into consideration all the circumstances, that in v...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Vasant Baburao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1300
ORDERChoudhuri, J.1. This revision arises out of a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Vasant son of Baburao and Baburao son of Mayaram driver and conductor of bus No. M.P.B. 411 belonging to the C.P.T.S. were prosecuted under Section 123 read with Section 42 and rule 79 (viii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge against them was that they should have carried 35 passengers as per permit, but they actually carried 53 adults and one passenger below 12 years of age.They pleaded guilty and were in a summary trial convicted under Section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the Section 42 (1) ibid and Rule 79 (viii) of the Rules framed under it. They were fined Rs. 100/- each, or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 45 days. It was admitted by the non-applicants Vasant and Baburao that the bus had an authorized seating accommodation of 35 passengers and they were carrying 53 1/2 passengers in the bus at the ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »