Mumbai Court December 1956 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.
Karson Ramji Chawda Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom99; (1957)59BOMLR136; 1958CriLJ351; ILR1957Bom410
Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case was ordered by the Magistrate to pay maintenance to his wife amounting to Rs. 30/- per month and maintenance to his daughter amounting to Rs. 25 per month. The applicant made a default and failed to comply with this order. The wife made an application that there had been a default in the payment for four months. The Magistrate issued a warrant and the warrant could not be executed as the applicant had no property. The wife then made an application under Section 488 (3) and on that application the Magistrate passed an order sentencing the applicant to be imprisoned for a term of 15 days in respect of each month for which the allowance remained unpaid.2. This sentence has been challenged on the ground that in passing the sentence for two months, the Magistrate exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 488 (3). The matter came up before Mr. Justice Bavde-kar and Mr. Justice Desai and they referred it to a Full Bench, as they felt...
Krishtappa Venkappa Gadad and ors. Vs. Gopal Shivaji Ramchandra Kulkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom214; (1957)59BOMLR176; ILR1957Bom588
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question submitted for the decision of this Full Bench is capable of being decided on a very narrow point and the question is this : 'Whether in' re-opening a partition made bet-Ween the surviving members of a joint Hindu family at the instance of a son adopted by the widow of a deceased co-parcener, the adopted son is entitled to claim that the properties alienated not for justifying necessity by the surviving co-parceners should be assigned to their shares and the adopted son should be awarded his share in the property existing at the date of his adoptive father's death and accretions thereto UK-affected by those alienations?' The matter was referred to a Pull Bench because Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Vyas, felt that there was some conflict between the ratio of the decision in Bhimaji Krishnarao v. Hanmantrao Vinayak, : AIR1950Bom271 (A), and the decision in Gurupadappa v. Karishid-dappa 56 Bom LB 252 : AIR. 1954 Bom 318(B).2. Now, this Court laid down in the...
Jaswantrai Tricumlal Vyas Vs. Bai Jiwi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom195; (1957)59BOMLR168; ILR1957Bom342
Chagla, C.J.1. A question of some importance arises for the decision of this Full Bench. The facts may be simplified in order to pose the question clearly. A landlord flies an application for ejecting his tenant on the ground that he is in default for payment of rent. The tenant has no answer to the landlord's application. The landlord Joins in that application, which is preferred before a Revenue Authority, two persons who were sub-tenants of the tenant and to whom the land was let out, and the landlord contended that if the tenancy of the tenant could be legally terminated, the sub-tenants had no right to continue to remain on the land. The question that we have to consider is whether the Tenancy Act gives any protection to these two subtenants, a very important and salient feature of this case is that the contract of sub-tenancy between the tenant and the sub-tenants was a legal contract and the sub-tenants were cultivating the land lawfully. It is true that under the ordinary law o...
Maganlal Pragjibhai Seedsman Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom154; (1957)59BOMLR139; 1958CriLJ492; ILR1957Bom196
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that this Full Bench has to consider lies in a very narrow compass and in our opinion is capable only of one answer. A money-lender was convicted for having charged interest on the loan advanced by him at a rate higher than the rate prescribed by Government under Section 25 of the Bombay Money-lender's Act. The rate prescribed is 12 per cent. His contention was that he was not contravening the provisions of the Act inasmuch as what he was doing was charging compound interest at the rate mentioned in the Act. What he purported to do was that he added interest to the principal advanced by him and in the next year he charged 12 per cent. interest not merely on the loan actually advanced by him but on the loan plus the interest which had accumulated on that loan, and the question that falls to be considered by us is whether it is open to a money-lender to charge interest, even though he chooses to call it compound interest, at a rate exceeding the rate laid down...
Dattatraya Vishnu Vs. Ganpat Ragho and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom193; (1957)59BOMLR164; ILR1956Bom336
Chagla, C.J.1. This Pull Bench has been constituted to construe Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. When we look at the scheme of Section 34, Sub-section (1) gives the right to a landlord to evict his tenant if he bona fide requires the land for cultivating it personally or for any non-agricultural use for his own purpose. Sub-section (2) places certain restrictions upon the landlord from obtaining the land even if his case falls under Sub-section (1), and the first restriction is contained in Clause (a) which fixes a ceiling of the holding of the landlord and provides that even if the landlord, requires the land bona fide for personal cultivation, he cannot obtain the land if it goes beyond the ceiling. Then Clause (b) deals with a case where the tenant has become a member of a co-operative farming society. Clause (c), with which we are concerned, was enacted by Act 33 of 1952 and it is in the following terms:'(c) to termi...
New Gujarat Cotton Mills Limited Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: [1957]27CompCas500(Bom); (1957)IILLJ194Bom
Shah, J.1. This is an application for a writ under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution quashing an order passed by the abour Appellate Tribunal in five appeals Nos. 41 and 147 of 1954, 50, 51 and 148 of 1955. The orders passed by the Labour Court in appeals Nos. 50, 51 and 148 of 1955 were set aside by the Tribunal and the cases were remanded to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad and were directed to be tried on the merits in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal this application has been filed. The facts which give rise to this application may be briefly stated. 2. Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 were employees of the Gujarat Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as the old company. The old company had a factory at Ahmedabad for manufacture of cotton textiles. The old company closed its factory in October 1952 after putting up a notice understanding order No. 9. In February 1953, this court on a creditor's ...
New Gujarat Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom111; (1957)59BOMLR209; ILR1958Bom8; (1957)IILLJ194Bom
Shah, J. 1. This is an application for a Writ under Articles 220 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing an order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in five appeals Nos. 41 and 147 of 1954, 50, 51 and 148 of 1955. The orders passed by the Labour Court in appeals Nos. 50, 51 and 148 of 1955 were set aside by the Tribunal and the cases were remanded to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad and were directed to be tried on the merits in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Against the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal this application has been filed. The facts which give rise to this application may be briefly stated : 2. Respondents 5 to 13 were employees of the Gujarat Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., which will hereafter be, referred to as the Old Company. The Old Company had a factory at Ahmedabad for manufacture of cotton textiles. The Old Company closed its factory in October 1952 after putting, up a notice under standing order No. 9. The Old Company employed watchmen for protec...
Sheikh Ahmad Shaikh Mohamad Patil Vs. Devram Kalyanji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR282
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor. It arises out of special darkhast No. 15 of 1953 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, S.D., at Alibag, and it raises a point of law under Section 60, Sub-section (1), Clause (c), of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The point of law arises in this way: A money-decree was passed in favour of the respondent by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. It was transferred to the Alibag Court for execution. In execution, a darkhast was filed by the respondent-decree-holder against the appellant-judgment-debtor. During execution proceedings, the appellant's house was attached. Before the sale of the house was held, the appellant applied to the Court, claiming exemption of the house from sale under the provisions of Section 60, Sub-section (1), Clause (c). He contended that he was an agriculturist and that the house which had been attached and was being sold was used by him as a farm house. To that application the respondent objected and the ground...
State Vs. Bansilal Chhotalal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom13; 1957CriLJ50
Shah, J.1. Bansilal Chhotalal, who is found on evidence taken before the learned Sessions Judge at Baroda to be below the age of sixteen and Bai Lilavati were committed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Baroda, to stand their trial before the Court of Session at Baroda for an offence under Section 302. I. P. C.The learned Sessions Judge has made a recommendation to this Court that the order of committal passed against Bansilal Chhotalal, accused 1, be quashed, that the said accused Bansilal Chhotalal be ordered to be tried before the Juvenile Court and that it be ordered that Bai Lilavati, accused 2, be tried separately from accused 1 Bansilal Chhotalal.2. In the District of Baroda a Juvenile Court has been constituted and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Baroda, exercises the power Of the Juvenile Court under Section 8, Bombay Children Act, 1943. By Section 9, Bombay Children Act, a Juvenile Court is the only Court competent to try cases in which a child ...
Narayan Laxman Ayarkar and ors. Vs. Vishnu Waman Dhawale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom117; (1957)59BOMLR205
Shah, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of restitution proceedings. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 filed Suit No. 67 of 1943 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pen against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and another person. The suit was filed under Order 1, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code by appellants NOS. 1 and 2 in their representative capacity. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be the Guraos of the Rameshwar Temple at Pen. In the suit they claimed possession of five lands alleging that the lands were granted in Inam to the Rameshwar Temple and were managed through Vahiwatdars. This suit was decreed on 13th September, 1946, and in December 1946 in execution of the decree appellants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained possession of the lands. Against the decree of the trial Court an appeal was filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the District Court and in appeal the decree of the trial Court was confirmed. In second appeal to this Court a consent decree was passed on 17th April, 1953. B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »