Mumbai Court March 1956 Judgments
Ramsing Bhimsing and 8 ors. Vs. Anil Starch Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ552Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Factories Act, 1943 - Section 78; Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 2 and 33AWARD1. This is a complaint filed by one Ramsing Bhimsing and eight others. The complainants are members of the watch and ward staff. It is alleged that they were given one month's privilege leave in a year with wages including dearness allowance since 1940; that the management has reduced this fully paid privilege leave by 15 days as from 9 August, 1955; that this amounts to an alteration in the conditions of service which affects them adversely and having been effected during the pendency of proceedings in reference (I.T.) No. 104 of 1955, without my permission, is illegal. The complainants have, therefore, prayed that the opponents be compelled to withdraw the change in the conditions of service by giving the watch and ward staff one month's fully paid privilege leave in each year. It is not denied that the members of the watch and ward staff of this concern were getting one month's privi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vithal Vs. Payagonda Anantgonda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom38; (1956)58BOMLR758; ILR1956Bom909
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The short point of law which arises in these two revisional applications falls to be considered under the second proviso to Section 22 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. The petitioners before us are the creditors and on their behalf Mr. Paranjape has strenuously contended that the Courts below acted illegally in submitting the debts due to the petitioners to the cuts prescribed by Section 22 of the Act. His argument is that the effect of the second proviso to Section 22 is that the amount which has already been determined as due to the creditors from their debtors shall be binding on the parties and the said amount shall not be submitted to any further cut under Section 22 of the Act. The answer to the point thus raised by Mr. Paranjape would depend on the construction of the said second proviso.2. Before dealing with this point, it would be relevant to mention a few material facts which give rise to the point. The two creditors before us are Ut...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. the Trustees of the Will of A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR766
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded:] Before we deal with these instances a rather important point of procedure was raised by Mr. Bhat which we must proceed to consider. What was urged by Mr. Bhat was that many of these sales relied upon by the claimants were not strictly proved in the sense that neither the vendor nor the purchaser was called to depose to these sales and it was urged that the mere admission by the Land Acquisition Officer of the fact that these sales had been effected cannot take the place of the proper proof required by law. In order to understand this contention it is necessary to bear in mind the exact position of the claimant when he comes on a reference before the Court. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer, as has often been said, is nothing more than an offer. It is open to the person whose lands are being acquired to accept that offer or he may not accept that offer and claim a reference to the Court. By claiming a ref...
Tag this Judgment!Chelaji Gomaji and Co. Vs. Bai Jashodharabai Shambhudutt Nishir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1956
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR251
Tendolkar, J.1. Mr. Parpia wishes to call Mr. Gajjar who, he claims, is an expert on typewriters or rather on. typewritten documents, to prove that the promissory note and the memo of mortgage were typed on the same typewriter. He says that the comparison, of material typed on different typewriters is a matter of science, and Mr. Gajjar is an expert who can give opinion evidence. under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, but, in any event, he submits that even if Mr. Gajjar may not be allowed to give opinion evidence, he may be permitted to point out the similarities between the two documents, in so far as their typing is concerned, or the defects which might enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the two documents are or are not typed on the same typewriter. A recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in Hanumant v. State of M.P. : 1953CriLJ129 lays down in unmistakable language that such opinion evidence is not admissible under Section 45, an...
Tag this Judgment!Western India theatres Ltd. Vs. Associated Bombay Cinemas Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: [1959]29CompCas127(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises a rather important question as to procedure to be followed in the winding up of companies. The respondents presented a petition for winding up of the appellant company before Mr. Justice COYAJEE who was the Company Judge. The petition was presented on November 11, 1955, and the learned Judge made the following endorsement : 'Accepted. Petitioners waive service. Hearing 2nd of December.' 2. It may be pointed out that before this petition was filed the respondent company had given notice of the presentation of the petition to the appellant company and in answer to that notice the appellant company appeared before Mr. Justice COYAJEE and all that Mr. Justice COYAJEE'S endorsement indicates is that the appellant company had waived service of the petition. On December 1, 1955, Mr. K. M. Modi, managing director of the appellant company, made an affidavit setting out his defence to the case sought to be made out by the petitioners for the winding up of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dagadu Dhondu Patil Vs. Trakadu Motiram Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom79; (1956)58BOMLR734; ILR1956Bom844
ORDER1. The petitioner Dagdu Dhondu Patil filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2775 of 1945 under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act 1939, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chalisgaon, alleging that an oral sale by him of S. No. 5/5A of the Village of Sarwe Budruk, Taluka Pachora to one Sampat Supdu for a consideration of Rs. 550/- by a yardi given to the village officers, was in the nature of a mortgage and that the debt due thereunder had been satisfied & praying an order for return of the land. Sampat Supdu died during the pendency of the application and his heirs were brought on the record. The heirs of Sampat Supdu, whom I will hereafter refer to as the opponents, contended that the land was sold on 9th June 1935, by an oral sale to Sampat Supdu by the petitioner Dagdu Dhondu and that the transaction was not in the nature of a self redeeming mortgage as alleged by the petitioner. They also denied that there was an agreement to return the land after seven ye...
Tag this Judgment!Worlikar D.K. Vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ92Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Judge, First Labour Court, Bombay, in an application made by the appellant praying for a declaration that the action of the respondent company in dismissing him was illegal and improper and for his reinstatement with compensation and other consequential reliefs. 2. The appellant was working as a stenographer in the respondent company's head office at Bombay on a monthly salary of Rs. 135 and a dearness allowance of Rs. 27. He was dismissed by the respondent on account of neglect of duty refusal to obey the directions given to him by his superiors and his insubordinate and arrogant behaviour. The appellant challenged the legality and propriety of the order passed by the respondent and prayed for his reinstatement with compensation. 3. The respondent contended that inter alia that the notification issued by Government applying the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 to the Sugar factories does not apply to the head offices of the suga...
Tag this Judgment!Karamchand Pessumal Vs. Madhavdas Savaldas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom669; (1956)58BOMLR754; ILR1956Bom839
Chagla, C.J. 1. A short but rather interesting question as to the proper construction of Section 10, Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951 arises on this appeal, and the only facts that are necessary to state for the determination of this question are that the appellant filed an application under Section 10 before the Tribunal, who was the Judge of the City Civil Court, claiming partnership account from the respondents who were his partners, on the basis of the partnership being dissolved in July 1949, and also claiming to receive moneys found due and payable to him on taking such accounts. Now, if this had been a suit the suit would have been obviously described as a suit for taking partnership accounts of a dissolved partnership, and the question that falls to be determined by us is whether under Section 10 an application can be made of the nature made by the appellant in this case. The learned Judge below took the view that the petition did not lie and dismissed it, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. N.A. Rahimbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom78; (1956)58BOMLR600; 1957CriLJ364; ILR1956Bom572
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for not complying with a notice issued to him by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) Bombay on April 28, 1955. This notice was issued under Section 274 (1) of the Act, which empowers the Commissioner by a written notice to require the owner of any premises furnished with a private water supply to provide such premises with cisterns and fittings of such size, material, quality and description as the Commissioner may think fit. It was urged before learned Magistrate that under Section 274, a notice can be issued only by the Commissioner, that the Commissioner's powers under this section could not be delegated to the Deputy Commissioner (Improvements) under Sections 68 of the Act and that consequently the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, (Improvements) had no power to issue notice to the res...
Tag this Judgment!Chhandra Bhan Varma Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom601
1. This is a suit against the Union of India instituted by an officer of the Indian Army for a declaration that his dismissal from service was wrongful. He seeks other reliefs also including damages and his claim for damages aggregates to Rs. 1,07,012/-. The defendant has raised various contentions. One of the contentions is that the suit is barred by limitation.Another contention is that apart from the merits of the case the plaintiff, as a member of the defence service, held office during the pleasure of the President by virtue of Article 310 of the Constitution and was, therefore, dismissible at will. Two preliminary issues as to limitation and maintainability of the suit have been tried by me at the instance of learned counsel for the defendant. The question of limitation may conveniently be considered after the plea of maintainability is examined.2. The suit in my judgment fails in limine and I shall only succinctly state the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff began serving the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »