Mumbai Court November 1956 Judgments
The State Vs. Hathiwala Textile Mills and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom209; (1957)59BOMLR184; 1957CriLJ957; ILR1957Bom358; (1957)IILLJ202Bom
Gokhale, J.1. In this appeal against acquittal by the State of Bombay a short but important point of law arises for our decision. There fire three respondents in this appeal and respondent No. J is the Hathiwala Textile Mills at Begumpura, while respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 are its occupier and Manager respectively. On 4-3-1952 the Employees' Provident Funds Act (No. 19 of 1952) was made applicable with the result that the workers of the factory began to enjoy the benefits of provident fund under the provisions of the Act. It is not disputed that the respondents complied with the provisions of the Act sometime till April 1954. On the 6-4-1954 it seems that the weaving department of the respondent Mills was closed. It appears that even though the weaving department was closed, the Engineering department continued. But the number of workers in the factory fell below the figure of 50. The employers, therefore, thought that the workers in their factory would no longer be entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sitaram Vs. Namdeo Narayan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom168; (1957)59BOMLR293; ILR1957Bom525
Mudholkar, J. 1. This judgment will also govern the disposal Of First Appeal No. 153 of 1950.2. Both the appeals arise out of a suit Instituted by Namdeo Gore and Dattatraya Fulkar under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the defendant No. 1 Bhagwan son of Sitaram from the trusteeship of Shrce Datta Deo-sthan Kalamb. The relevant facts are as follows:One Kasabai, the widow of Krishnaji Gore, executed a deed of trust on 3-6-1928 whereunder she dedicated S. No. 34/1 area 10 acres 32 gunthas of Kasba Kalamb to the temple of Shree Datta Saunsthan & appointed five persons including the defendant No. 1 Bhagwan as trustees. Other persons who were appointed trustees were Dattatraya Balaji Sarde, who is no longer alive, defendant No. 3 Dada Vitlioba, plaintiff No. 2 Dattatraya Fulkar and defendant No. 2 Laxman Gangaram.3. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 was in the sole possession and management of the field that he had not rendered any accounts of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Asha Vs. Bai Biban
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR470
Vyas, J.1. This appeal raises a point as to the law which is applicable, in matters of succession and inheritance, to the Sunni Bohras of the territory which was formerly known as the Baroda State. Are they governed in such matters (succession and inheritance) by the Hindu law or does the Mahomedan law apply to them? This point has arisen in this way.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in. this appeal, is the sister of. one Gulam Hussein Kasnbhai. Gulam Hussein died on April 19, 1944. This is, therefore, a suit by a sister of a deceased person for the administration of the properties left by him and for partition and separate possession of what she contends is her share in the said properties. It may be noted that Bai Biban and Bai Urbai, who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2, are the widows of Gulam Hussein. Gulam Hussein died without leaving any issue. His properties with which, we are concerned in this suit are three houses, certain ornaments, lands etc. In these properties the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Khalilulla Hasmiya Ghole and anr. Vs. Yesu Raghu Dhadvel and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom200; (1957)59BOMLR201; ILR1957Bom355
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This special civil application by the landlords raises the vexed question of construing one of the conditions laid down by Section 34 when a landlord seeks to eject his tenant on the ground that he wants his land bona fide for cultivating personally.' This condition is prescribed by Section 34 (2-A) (1). If the landlord bona fide requires the land for any of the purposes specified in Sub-section (1), then his right to terminate the tenancy snail be subject to the conditions mentioned in Clauses (1) to (4) of this subsection, it is with Clause (1) of this sub-section that We are concerned in the present, application. 2. Now, Clause (1) of Sub-section (2-A) provides that if the land held by the protected tenant on lease stands in the record of rights in the name of the landlord on the first day of January 1952 as the superior holder, then the landlord will have a right to terminate the tenancy on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The Revenue Courts and the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Sardar Sardul Singh Kirpalsingh Caveeshar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR449
Vyas, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the prosecution case and the various defences taken by the accused, proceeded :] As the convictions of accused Nos. 2 and 5 were based upon the acceptance of the unanimous verdict of the jury and as the convictions of accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 were based upon the acceptance of the majority verdict of 8 against 1 and 6 against 3 respectively, it would not be open to this Court to go behind the verdict unless the appellants' learned advocate Mr. Chari was able to satisfy us that the learned Judge's charge to the jury suffered from misdirections ornon-directions amounting to mis-directions. In this connection, the first submission which Mr. Chari strenuously pressed before us was that a considerable bulk of evidence relating to the conduct of Lala Shankarlal after the conspiracy was carried out was wholly inadmissible and yet it was allowed to be led. Mr. Chari did not dispute the legal position that the evidence of Lala Shankarlal's conduc...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port Vs. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: (1957)ILLJ626Bom
Gajendragadakar, J.1. These two special civil applications have been preferred against two orders passed by the learned authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bombay, directing the petitioners, who are trustees of the Port of Bombay, to pay to the two opponents respectively an amount of Rs. 18-7-0 each as illegal deductions. The two opponents were employed in the Bombay Port Trust Docks as 'B' category casual workmen in accordance with the terms of the decasualization scheme for the direct employment of dock labourers who had previously been employed through labour contractors known as toliwalas. Both of them claimed that illegal deduction had been made in respect of their wages for five Sundays in July 1955 at the rate of Rs. 3-11-0 per Sunday. That is how they claimed to recover Rs. 18-7-0 each which had been, illegally deducted. The case made out by the two employees was that, under the rules framed by the Central Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, they were entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Homi D. Mistry Vs. Shree Nafisul Hussan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1956
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR279
N.H.C. Coyajee, Actg. C.J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming damages from the defendants for wrongful arrest and detention. The plaintiff' says that at the relevant time when his arrest and detention took place he was the Deputy Editor of an English Weekly published in Bombay called 'Blitz'. Defendant No. 1 was at the relevant time the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Defendant No. 2 is the State of Uttar Pradesh. Defendant No. 3 is impleaded because he was at the relevant time Commissioner of Police for the Greater Bombay area, who it is alleged was allowed by defendant No. 4, the State of Bombay, to aid in the arrest and detention of the plaintiff'. According1 to the plaintiff on March 10, he heard through certain newspapers in Bombay that a senior inspector of Uttar Pradesh C.I.D. had left for Bombay with a warrant issued by defendant No. 1 as Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for the arrest of the plaintiff which warrant was duly issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Fatma AlauddIn Vs. Mumna Miranji Haji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom107; (1957)59BOMLR154; ILR1957Bom453
1. This is a wife's second appeal arising out of her suit against the respondent husband for a dissolution of her marriage under Section 2 of the Saurashtra Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, No. XXVI of 1952, the grounds for the dissolution alleged being fl) that she was treated cruelly. (2) that she was not treated equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Koran, and (3) that the defendant had neglected or had failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years prior to the suit. The parties ace Mahomedans and were married some time in about 1946-47 and they lived together for about two or three years, after which the plaintiff has gone to live with her parents. The husband's defence was that he had made attempts to bring back the plaintiff to his house and that the plaintiff had, without any justifiable reason, refused to come and live with him, that he had not neglected nor had failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years nor bad he treate...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shankar Sakharam Jadhav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom226; (1957)59BOMLR244; 1957CriLJ1107; ILR1958Bom1092
Dixit, J.1. This case is, I think, notable for the brutality -of a crime and the callousness with which the crime was committed. Five members of a family and a servant In the family died of injuries caused to them and the five members included a six month old child. The injuries inflicted upon these persons number 67, some of them being either upon the abdomen or upon the chest. This is a shocking crime and will perhaps remain unsurpassed in its ferocity, but the Court's approach to the evidence in the case must be dispassionate and free from 'prejudice and the examination of the evidence must be fair find just in fixing the guilt upon the accused persons and in this connection, we will bear in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh State of Madhya pradesh, : 1952CriLJ839 (A). There their Lordships observed as follows:'Where the murder committed is a particularly cruel and revolting one, it is necessary to examine the evidence with more than ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Shirinath Durgaprasad and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom223; (1957)59BOMLR221; 1957CriLJ1104
Vyas, J.1. (After stating the prosecution case his Lordship proceeded:) Mr. Jethmalani, the learned Advocate who appears for the appellants, has contended before us that the learned Judge committed an illegality by admitting inadmissible evidence, namely, the statement Exht. H. alleged to have been made by Sushilabai, and that this would entitle usto go behind the verdict. Mr. Jethmalani has contended that as the Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Baikrishna Vithal Shinde did not keep a record of the questions put by him to Sushilabai and of the answers given by Sushilabai to those questions, there is no certainty that what purports to be her dying declaration Exht. H was truly and fully a statement of Sushilabai and that therefore the statement Exh. H is not admissible under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as a dying declaration of Sushilabai. According to Mr. Jethmalani there was a grave procedural defect in the trial as the learned Judge admitted inadmissible evidence on the record, nam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »