Mumbai Court September 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.
Sitaram Narayan Vs. Ganpati Appaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom140
1. This is an appeal by plaintiff 1 and it arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, South Satara at Sangli, in Civil Appeal No. 178 of 1951 which arose out of a judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1950 which was filed in the Court of the Jt. Civil Judge J.D. at Islampur.2. The facts of the case which have led to this litigation may now shortly be stated. The suit property in this case is a house in Kalawadl a village in South Satara District. This property originally belonged to one Hari Raghu Shimpi. Hari Raghu died on 25-8-1907 leaving surviving behind him his widow Bai Ganga and daughter Bai Vithabai.It is not disputed that even during the lifetime of Hari Raghu, Hari's wife Bai Ganga was living an unchaste life. She was living a life of adulterous intercourse with one Sakharam Gopal and as a result of this adulterous intercourse of Bai Ganga with Sakharam Gopal, an illegitimate daughter Bai Soni was born to Bal Ganga on 1-11-1905.It may be ...
Balu Govinda and ors. Vs. Narayan Gyanuji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom208
1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and by the heir of defendant No. 5 and it arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, North Satara, at Satara in Civil Appeal No. 228, of 1951 which arose out of a judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 280 of 1949 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division, at Wai.2. This suit No. 280 of 1949 has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendants are protected tenants of the suit property. The suit property is Section No. 92 admeasuring three acres six gunthas and assessed at Rs. 15-12-0 situated at Wai in the District of North Satara. There is no dispute that the suit property is a Devasthan Inam (Class III) of the temple of Shri Baneshwar.On 30-10-1945, the Rastes as Wahiwatdars of the above-mentioned temple sold the suit land to the present plaintiff for Rs. 3100 by the sale deed Ex. 86. In the suit a relief has also been asked for recovering Rs. 900 from the defendants as dam...
Asgarali Roshanalli and anr. Vs. Kayumalli Ibrahimji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom236
1. This revision application is filed against the order passed in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 80 of 1952 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Godhra, in the exercise of his Small Cause Jurisdiction dismissing the plaintiffs suit for a decree for rent due for the period between the 25-3-1952 to 24-5-1952 in respect of certain premises occupied by the defendant. The plaint-tiffs claimed that the defendant was their tenant in respect of the premises.The defendant inter alia denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and himself. The learned trial Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that there was no relationship of landlord -and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant, in arriving at the conclusion as to the relationship between the parties the learned trial Judge considered the question, whether the property did really belong to the plaintiffs or it was the property of the plaintiffs' father who had been adjudicated insolvent.The learned tri...
P. Krishnan Nair Vs. Ramchandra Vithal Sanghavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom268
1. The plaintiff Ramchandra VI-that Sanghavi filed Suit No. 6578 of 1950 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against three deiendants claiming a decree for possession of a portion of the ground floor of a building known as 'Vishiani Building' Lakshmi Napoo Road, Matun-ga, Bombay alleging that he was a sub-tenant of the suit premises. The plaintiff claimed a declaration of his right and also asked for an injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2, their servants and agents from interfering in any way with or obstructing the right, title and interest of the plaintiff as a sub-tenant in the portion of the premises described in. the plaint. The relief for declaration was plainly unnecessary because it was only if the plaintiff proved that he was a tenant or a sub-tenant that he could obtain a decree for possession.2. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit, and in appeal the decree, passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Thereafter execution was taken out by the plaintiff, and in ...
Anna Sakharam Patil Vs. Basgouda Anna Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR177
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it raises a question of construction of a certain document dated July 25, 1910. The form of this document is a deed of gift by Saubai, the widow of Sakharam Satgouda Patil, in favour of her daughter Krishnabai who was the next reversioner. The question is, did Saubai by this document surrender her estate in the properties of her husband in favour of the next reversioner by completely effacing herself from the estate or did she intend that the transfer of her estate to the next reversioner should take effect only after her death.2. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 556 of 1949 to recover possession of the suit properties which consist of certain lands and a house situated in Digraj village in Sangli District. The suit properties belonged originally to one Sakharam Satgouda Patil who died about forty years ago, leaving surviving behind him his widow Saubai and a daughter Krishnabai. Saubai adopted the present plaintiff on June 21, 19...
ismail Papamia and ors. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom584; (1955)57BOMLR1106; ILR1956Bom42; (1957)ILLJ51Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition raises a rather interesting question of construction of Sections 7 and 9, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, (Act 20 of 1946).2. The second respondent company applied to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act, for permission to dismiss 27 of its employees. Its contention was that there was an illegal strike on 11-11-1953. of the workers of the company, that these 27 employees had participated in the illegal strike and they had also refused to obey lawful orders.It was further the contention of the second respondent company that a proper inquiry as re-quired by the standing Orders had been held, that, the charge of misconduct with regard to these two acts had been established and therefore under the Standing Orders the Company was entitled to inflict the penalty of dismissal upon these 27 workers.The Industrial Court granted permission with regard to 3 out of the 27 employees and refused permission with regard to 24, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›