Mumbai Court December 1956 Judgments
Phoolchand Sethi Vs. Nagpur University and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom215; (1957)59BOMLR300
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is a petition by a registered graduate of the Nagpur University for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the University of Nagpur under Article 226 of the Constitution Quashing the order of the Registrar of the University dated the 21st of November 1956 rejecting the petitioner's nomination paper, of a writ against the respondents directing them to receive the said nomination paper as having been validly delivered to the respondent No. 2, the Registrar, and a writ ordering them to hold fresh elections. He has also applied for an interim order restraining the respondents from announcing the results of the elections to the University Court which have in the meanwhile been held. 2. It is common ground that the petitioner was duly proposed and seconded as a candidate for election to the University Court by the registered graduates of the Nagpur University. It is also common ground that the nomination paper was sent by registered post by the proposer to the Registrar of ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Afzalur Rahman Vs. Syed Naziruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR360
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against a decree declaring that the plaintiff has an 8 anna share, in the Tapowan Jagir, that he has a like share in fields S. Nos. 26, 27 and 33 situate at Tapowan, that he is entitled to accounts from defendant No. 1 of the income of the Jagir village and the three fields for the years 1944-45, 1945-46, and 1946-47 and that he is entitled to partition and separate possession of his share in those fields.2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are brothers, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are their sisters, and defendant No. 2 was their mother who died during the pendency of the appeal. It is common ground that the inam of the village Tapowan was granted to Ainuddin (junior) who was related to the parties to the suit as shown in the following genealogical tree: Ainuddin (Senior)Syed Raza Asadulla Mohd. HamzaAnso Miyan Faizulla Ainuddin (Junior)daughters Mumtaz Begum Asadulla Syed Ahmadulla = Putli Begum (deft. 2)Syed Afzalur Syed Naziruddin Su...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul HussaIn Mohasinali Bohri Vs. Fazalbhai Taheralli Bohri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR296
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from a decree disallowing him interest on the amount claimed by him from the defendants on foot of a promissory note.2. It is common ground that the firm 'Taharali Haji Hibtullabhai' owed some money to the plaintiff's father Mohasinali. After the death of the plaintiff's father his estate was divided amongst his heirs. At that time the debt due from the firm to Mohasinali was allotted to the plaintiff. On June 27, 1935, Seth Taharali as a partner and agent of the firm and on behalf thereof executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000 in respect of the money owed by the firm to Mohasinali. The promissory note did not provide for any interest. On June 27, 1938, Seth Taharali executed another promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on behalf of the firm for Rs. 10,500 with interest at-/8/- per cent, per month. This sum of Rs. 10,500 was made up of Rs. 9,000 due on the earlier promissory note and of Rs. 1,500 as in...
Tag this Judgment!Sadu Sitkura Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR298
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner claiming to be the nearest relative of Atmaram, the deceased kotwar of Mouza Nawargaon, challenges the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gondia, confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, in appeal and by the Board of Revenue in revision, appointing Lakhan, the brother-in-law of Atmaram, as kotwar in succession to Atmaram.2. The matter is governed by Section 196(1) of the Central Provaices Land Revenue Act read with the rules framed under Section 227 of that Act. Section 196(1) reads as follows:For each village or group of villages there shall be appointed, in accordance with rules made under Section 227, one or more kotwars orvillage-watchmen.Rule 3 framed under Section 227, among other things, provides as follows :.On a vacancy occurring in the post of village watchman, the Revenue Officer exercising the powers of appointment shall select a successor, who shall, if possible, be the nearest relative of the previous incumbent....Below this rule is...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Umashankar Krupashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR373
Mudholkar, J. 1. The respondent, Umashankar, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Couching Act, 1944, but was acquitted by the trying Magistrate. The State Government feeling themselves aggrieved by the. decision have come up in appeal.2. The only question in this appeal is whether the respondent who is registered as a medical practitioner under Section 16 of the Central Provinces and BerarAyurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1947, could be deemed to be a 'registered practitioner' within the meaning assigned to the term in the Central Pro-vices and Berar Regulation of Couching Act, 1944. Section 2 of that Act says that the expression 'registered, practitioner' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the C.P. and Berar Medical Registration Act, 1916. The latter Act defines 'registered practitioner' as follows:3(5) 'registered practitioner means any person registered or deemed to have been registered under the provisions of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamraj Mahadeo Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Akola and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom154
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a tenant against an order passed in a proceeding under the C. P. and Berar House Rent Control Order permitting the landlord to terminate his tenancy. During the course of the proceeding before the Rent Controller the parlies came to an agreement that the landlord will withdraw the application if the rental arrears amounting to Rs. 65/- were paid by the tenant in the Court by 5-8-1955. The order-sheet of the case which embodies the agreement reads as follows :'I grant time to N. A. to deposit the amount of Rs. 65/- by 5-8-55 in Court. Failing which permission will be granted. If amount is paid the applicant says he will withdraw other grounds. Case for 5-8-1955.'Sd/- Rajendraprasad 13-7-1955. On 5-8-1955, the case was taken up by the Rent Controller at 12 noon. The order-sheet of that date runs thus :'Applicant by agent Sakharam. N. A. absent. He had admitted Rs. 62/- including taxes are due and was given time to deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Bhawaniji Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Amravati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom238; (1957)59BOMLR267
Kotval, J. 1. This is a petition by Janardan son of Bhawanji Taralkar who had filed his nomination paper for election, as a member of the Gram Panchayat at Virul, taluq Chandur. The nomination paper was rejected by the Supervising Officer under Section 14 (b-l) of the C. P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946. 2. Section- 14 (b-l) of the Act runs as follows : '14. A person shall be disqualified for election, nomination or appointment as a Panch, Deputy Sar Fanch or Sarpanch If such person--(b.1) is servant of any local authority;***** The points that have been raised in this petition are (a) whether he was a servant of the local authority. 3. The petitioner was a cattle pound mohar. rir of the cattle pound at Virur which is under the management of the Janapada Sabba at Chandur. He was not paid a monthly salary but was remunerated by payment of commission. This is the ground on which he claims that he cannot be deemed to be a servant of that local authority. 4. It is admitted that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Dinbai R. Wadia and ors. Vs. Farukh Mobedjna and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom218; (1957)59BOMLR1196
FactsThe widow and 4 children of one Rustom Ardeshir Wadia brought an action for loss occasioned to them by his death caused as a result of a collision between a motor cycle belonging to the first defendant and another motor vehicle. Ardrshir Wadia, the deceased, died on 12th July, 1955 as a result of injuries received by him in the accident. On 10th July, 1955 at about 4 p.m. the deceased was riding on the pillion seat of a motor cycle BML 428 belonging to the first defendant. The motor cycle was at that time being driven by the second defendant. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the motor cycle was being driven by the second defendant with the knowledge and consent of and as agent of the first defendant. The second defendant was driving the motor cycle along Cadell Road from Worli to Mahim. according to the plaintiffs, at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and in doing so dashed against and collided with a motor car bearing No. BML 1069 which was coming from t...
Tag this Judgment!Tamboli Boghalal Chhotalal and anr. Vs. Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom130; (1957)59BOMLR274; ILR1957Bom420
1. This is. an appeal by the defendants and it raises a question of construction of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 2. The question has arisen in this way: The plaintiffs, who are respondents in this appeal, filed Civil Suit No. 452 of 1951 in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, J.D., at Baroda to recover possession of lands S. Nos. 115, 118, 119/1, 125 beghas out of S. No. 126 and S. No. 129 of the village Akota, a village in the former State of Baroda, and to recover the amount of Rs. 601 as arrears ofrent in respect of the abovementioned lands for the Fasal of Samvat year 2007. The plaintiffs' case was that defendant No, 1, for himself and defendant No. 2, had taken these lands on lease for the Fasal of Samvat year 200-1 under a rent note dated the 17th April 1948. By this rent note the defendants had agreed to deliver-possession of the lands to the plaintiffs on the expiry of the agricultural season on Akhat...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Deju Puthrani Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom142; (1957)59BOMLR261; ILR1957Bom412; (1957)IILLJ245Bom
Shah, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of M/s. Forbes Forbos Campbell and Co. Ltd., Bombay, whom we will hereafter refer to as the Company. The petitioner is the Joint Secretary of the 'Forbes, Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd., and Allied Employees' Union' which is a Trade Union registered under the Indian, Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Industrial Tribunal of Bombay, in reference No. 89 of 1955 made an award which concerned the Union. 'Against the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, an appeal was preferred to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. It is claimed that the appeal involved a question relating to a dispute about bonus in which 200 employees of the Company were interested, After the appeal was ready for hearing a notice was sent on 27th April 1936 by the Office of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to the Union informing them that the appeal was ready for hearing and will be set down for hearing at short notice. Another notice d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »