Mumbai Court July 1956 Judgments
Sarubai and anr. Vs. Babu Bhikaji Takle and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom28
ORDER1. The petitioners submitted an application to the Debt Adjustment Court at Poona on 31-7-1947, for adjustment of their debts under Section 4 of the B. A. D. B Act. By that application the petitioners claimed that they were debtors within the meaning of the B. A. p. B. Act. It may be mentioned that the last date for filing the application was 31-7-1947, and the application was filed on the very last day. On 18-8-1951, the petitioners applied by the application Exhibit 26 for amendment of the petition alleging that they were agricultural labourers and not debtors within the meaning of the B.A.D.B. Act. This application was granted ex parte and the issues raised by the Court were amended. There, after on 27-12-1951, the proceedings reached hearing before the Debt Adjustment Court. The second petitioner was examined and the court found that the petitioners were not residents of Poona but were residents of Khed which was not within the territorial limits of the Debt Adjustment Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Shanta Govindrao Apte and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1298
ORDERMudholkar, J.1. The applicants Kumari Shanta Apte and her brother Baburao were convicted off an offence under Section 13(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act by Shri R. G. Bajpai, Magistrate, first class, Nagpur, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Kumari Shanta Apte was also charged under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted of that offence. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, affirmed the conviction of each of the applicants under Section 13(a) of the Prohibition Act but reduced the fine to Rs. 250/-.2. The relevant facts are as follows : Kumari Apte, who is a film actress and who acts on the stage, visited Nagpur in April 1954, for acting in certain Marathi dramas. She was accompanied by her brother and private secretary Baburao. While at Nagpur, she stayed at the Mount Hotel.3. Upon receiving information that the applicants were taking liquor without hold...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony SabastIn Almeda Vs. R.M. Taylor and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom737; (1956)58BOMLR899; ILR1957Bom15; (1957)ILLJ452Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition challenges a decision of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Bombay, by which he held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the petitioner and 116 other against the Naval Dockyard for payment of part of their wages illegally deducted. The facts briefly are that these 117 persons were employed as lorry drivers in the Indian Naval Dockyard end from May 1945 to July 1947 their wages were Rs. 100/-per month.In August 1947 their wages were reduced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 70/-. On 31-12-1947 rules were framed by the Governor General under Section 241(2), Government of India Act and these rules were issued in a notification and under this the wage scale for the lorry drivers was fixed at Rs. 60-75. It appears that these lorry drivers were asked to elect as to whether they would accept this wage scale and also if they did accept, the wage scale was to operate from 1-1-1947. They elected to acc...
Tag this Judgment!The Deccan Cement Products Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC100(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a reference made to us by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, and the suit out of which this reference arises came to be filed under the following circumstances. The plaintiff company went into liquidation on the 26th March, 1933, and a liquidator was appointed. The company was dealing in manufacture and sale of cement articles and it was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. On the 20th June, 1952, the company intimated to the Sales Tax Authority that it had stopped its business and requesting the authority to cancel the certificate of registration. Pursuant to this letter the certificate was cancelled on the 21st June, 1952. At the date when the company stopped its business it had assets consisting of first, plant, machinery and other equipment worth Rs. 61,308-2-3, there was laboratory apparatus worth Rs. 1,287-13-6, there were finished goods worth Rs. 5,595-8-0, and there were raw materials worth Rs. 3,548-3-6, and the Sales Tax Author...
Tag this Judgment!Western India theatres Ltd. Vs. Associated Bombay Cinemas Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Bom170; (1958)60BOMLR1240; ILR1958Bom1237
M.C. 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 11-11-1955 and the learned Judge made the following endorsement.'Accepted. Petitioners waive service. Hearing 2nd of December.'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 1-12-1955 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 appellant company, ...
Tag this Judgment!Michael Anthony Rodrigues Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom729; (1956)58BOMLR825; ILR1956Bom954
Chagla, C.J. 1. The appellant challenged before Coyajee J. an order passed by the State of Bombay on 17-11-1655 that he shall not remain in India after the expiry of 24 hours from the date on which the order was served on him. This order was made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, Foreigners' Act, 1946.The question that was agitated before Coyajee J. was whether the appellant was a foreigner liable to be sent out of the country under the Foreigners' Act, or having acquired an Indian domicile he had become a citizen of India to whom the Foreigners' Act' could not apply.' The learned Judge on a consideration of the materials before him held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had acquired an Indian domicile and dismissed his petition. The appellant has now come in appeal.2. In the first place, let us look at the undisputed facts in this case. The petitioner's father, who by nationality is a Goan, has been carrying on bus...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Chhana Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1956
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ484Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This unfortunate controversy between the employer, the second respondent company, and the petitioner who is an employee, arises by reason of an award given by Mr. Thakore, industrial tribunal, which was not as clear in its decision as one would like it to be. The facts which led up to the making of the award are that there was an industrial dispute between the second respondent company and its employees in 1946. That dispute was referred to Sri Harsidhbhai Divatia, and two of the matters in dispute were with regard to privilege leave and paid casual leave. Sir Harsidhbhai made the award on 18 March 1948 and with regard to these two matters in dispute the award was that the employees should have one month's paid privilege leave and ten days' paid casual leave. These provisions were to apply to workers of the company who were monthly workers. With regard to those workers who were daily-rated, the provision was that they should get privilege leave for three weeks and there ...
Tag this Judgment!Ballabhdas Eshwardas Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR873
Bavdekar, J. 1. The appellants are contractors who have got a contract from the Central Railway to run buffet cars in certain trains running between Bombay and Poona and certain stalls at Victoria Terminus. It appears from the evidence that they have besides 22 other contracts. All these contracts have been terminated by a notice given by the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Central Railway on January 23, 1956. This notice was admittedly served upon the appellants and called upon them to vacate among others the stalls at V.T. and the carriages in which the appellants run the buffet service between Bombay and Poona by April 1, 1956. It appears that by a subsequent letter dated February 10, 1956, this period was extended upto May 31, 1956. It was the case of the appellants that so far as the contract of buffet ears in certain trains between Bombay and Poona and the stalls at V.T. are concerned, this contract was renewed and was to expire only on March 31, 1957. Whatever may be the ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Thillai Natarajan Vs. C.P. Fernandes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR821; (1957)ILLJ490Bom
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner was employed as an abstract clerk in the office of the Goods Superintendent of the Central Railway at Wadi Bunder in Bombay. On August 27, 1955, he was served with a notice to show cause why his service should not be terminated. This notice was served upon him under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954. On September 5, 1955, the petitioner was suspended from service. The monthly wages to which the petitioner was entitled wore Rs. 170-8-0 and the railway authority paid to him for the month of September when he was suspended a sum of Rs. 123-12-0. The petitioner made an application to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the balance of the amount, viz. Rs. 46-12-0. The authority dismissed the application and the petitioner has come here under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. Mr. Singhvi has strenuously argued before us that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has failed to give effect to a clear dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›