Mumbai Court January 1957 Judgments
Padmakar Balkrishna Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom165; (1957)59BOMLR355; ILR1958Bom32
Shah, J.1. In this application the petitioner Padmakar Balkrishna Samant has sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956). The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Goregaon, without the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in the Taluka of Borivali, District Thana. The petitioner says that Goregaon was declared to be 'a village' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1923, and that the said village had a panchayat consisting of 15 elected members, that about 25000 persons are residing in the village and that the panchayat 1ms a revenue of about two lacs of rupees per annum and that the Goregaon Village Panchayat is the 'biggest and the most progressive' village panchayati within the State of Bombay. The petitioner further stated that under authority conferred upon the State of Bombay by an enactment entitled the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA ) (Amen...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Sir Jiwanjirao ScIndia Vs. Muzammil Khurshid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1011
S.T. Desai, J.1. The plaintiffs in the plaint as originally filed sued for a declaration that the defendants were in occupation by leave and licence of a flat of which plaintiff No. 1 was a tenant and the licence had been validly terminated and the defendants were, therefore, in wrongful use of the flat and were trespassers. The consequential relief sought was that the defendants may be restrained from occupying or using the flat. There was also a prayer for a mandatory injunction directing them to remove themselves from the flat. In addition, compensation at the rate of Rs. 300 per month was sought for use of the flat from January 1, 1951. There was furniture belonging to plaintiff No. 1 in the flat and the plaintiffs also made a claim for that furniture and compensation for its use. The furniture has now been handed back to the plaintiffs.2. In view of the shape the case has assumed before me at a rather late stage, it is not necessary to refer in any detail to the pleadings with whi...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rasiklal Popatlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom199; (1957)59BOMLR196; 1957CriLJ956; ILR1957Bom375
Palnitkar, J.1. Rasiklal Popatlal, the accused, is a merchant having his shop at Dholera. It was alleged that he Kept an unauthorised weight of thirty seers (Kachha) and used the same for his trade purposes. The accused was, therefore, charged under Section 34 of the Bombay Weights and Measures Act.2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he used the weight only for weighing cotton, which was given to labourers for taking out Pods from Kapas and then while getting back the Kapas, for, again weighing It and that it was not used for trade. The learned advocate for the accused-respondent has stated before us that the weight in question was used in order to ascertain the amount of wages to be paid to the labourers, to whom the cotton in question was given for removing the pods and some annas pen maund were given to the labourers for removing the pods from the cotton. The Inspector, Pandya, in his statement deposed that the weight in question was used to weigh cotton ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Lallubhai Shah Vs. the Charity Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR349
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Broach, under Section 56 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950; in Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 1955 of his file. One Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah, who will hereafter be referred to as the testator died in 1916 having made and executed on August 6, 19.15, a will disposing of his considerable property. The testator belonged to the Ladva Shrimali Shravak Bania community and professed the Jain religion. By his will the testator appointed his brother's daughter Bai Jekore and one Ratanchand Savaichand as trustees to administer the estate. By Clause 6 of his will he directed that his business in grocery should be wound up after his death and the trustees should conduct a money-lending business. He then directed that the shop should be continued till the death ofhis niece Bai Jekore. By Clause 7 the testator provided certain specific bequests. Those bequests were as follows :-(1) Rs. 100/-to Broach Panjra...
Tag this Judgment!Tatoba Ganu Vs. Tarabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom280; (1957)59BOMLR633; ILR1958Bom667
Dixit, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is about the effect of a deed of gift executed by one Balgonda in favour of plaintiff No. 1 on 9th June 1043. Mr. M. V. Paranjpe who appears for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the deed of gift is a voidable document, while Mr. Y. C. Chandrachud, appearing for defendants Nos. 4 and 5, contends that the deed of gift is void.2. The facts relevant to the determination of the question may be shortly stated. The first plaintiff is the adopted son of one Yamunabai who died in 1934, the plaintiff having been previously adopted by her in 1926. Yamunbai was the daughter of one Shidu who wag the eldest in a family of four brothers. On the 8th June 1880 a possessory mortgage was executed by one Santai, the widow of Narsinga and the mother of the four brothers, and by the mortgage two fields bearing survey Nos. 366 and 367 were conveyed to one Ishwara for a sum of Rs. 600/-. It is said that this transaction of mortgage was consented to by S...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Badlaji Sali Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR532
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal from the rejection of their plaint. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and Laxman, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 6 to 8, and the husband of plaintiff No. 9, and Pandurang, the brother of plaintiff No. 10 and the husband of plaintiffNo. 11, had along with certain other persons, formed an association at Ellichpur for carrying on a business of selling' yarn. At the relevant time certain Control Orders were in force by virture of which they could carry on their business only after obtaining licences from the Deputy Commissioner. By their order dated January 24, 1947, the former Provincial Government of the Central Provinces and Berar cancelled their licences and they were given time to dispose of their stock within one month. This time was extended by one month by the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, by his memorandum dated February 25, 1947. Before this order of the Deputy Commissioner was communicated to the plaintiffs, the Civil Supplies Inspector, Ellieh...
Tag this Judgment!Nanasaheb Gujaba Bankar Vs. Appa Ganu Bankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom138; (1957)59BOMLR303
Dixit, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred for decision to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Shah. The ground upon which the case was referred to this Bench was the ground that the case reported in Tribhovan Havgovan v. Shankar Desai : AIR1943Bom431 , does not seem to have been correctly decided. 2. The suit giving rise to the appeal was filed by the plaintiff Appa to recover, from the defendants, possession of the suit property which consists of two fields hearing S. No. 22/1-B and S. No. 22/I2-B. It appears that the plaintiff left for Karachi in orabout the year 1925 from where he returned in the year 1947. The plaintiff's case is that when he went to Karachi, he left defendant No. 1 in possession of the suit property as the agent of the plaintiff. On the 1st of July 1939, the plaintiff executed a sale-deed in relation to these lands in favour of defendant No. 2 who is defendant No. 1's cousin for the consideration of Rs. 99-15-0. At the date of the sale-deed, the fields were in...
Tag this Judgment!Harilal Shamalji Parekh Vs. JaIn Co-operative Housing Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom207; (1957)59BOMLR217; ILR1957Bom449
This is a group of 58 revision applications presented by the tenants of the Jain Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in respect of an order dated the 22nd of April 1955 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The few facts that are material for the determination of these applications are these. The petitioners as tenants had applied for fixation of the standard rent alleging that the contractual rent was excessive. It appears that the buildings were ready somewhere in 1949 and were occupied thereafter by the tenants. The land on which these buildings were constructed was the subject matter of negotiations for a lease between persons who subsequently became members of the Society and the Bombay Municipality. In 1942 the Society was registered and the negotiations were continued on behalf of the Society and in 1943 the Municipality accepted the offer made on behalf of the Society to grant a lease on the basis of Rs. 9/- per square yard of the entire land. Howe...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Ramchandra Vs. Damodar Vishwanath and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom218; (1957)59BOMLR478; ILR1958Bom21
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal by plaintiff No. 2 for himself and as an heir of plaintiff No. 1 and ft arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learnedAssistant Judge. North Satara, in Civil Appeal No. 368 of 1951 which in its turn arose out of civil suit No 228 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Third Joint Civil Judge, Satara.2. The abovementioned suit No. 228 of 1949 was filed by two plaintiffs Ramchandra and Mahadev who were father and son. It was filed for the recovery of certain documents or scripts which were specified in the schedule annexed to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is Mr. Damodar Vishwanath Gokhale, who is a journalist of Poona, and defendant No. 2 is a limited company of the name of 'Western India Trustee and Executor Company Ltd.' with its head office at Satara. It may be noted that after the judgment in the suit was pronounced by the trial Court, plaintiff No. 1 Ramchandra died. Plaintiff No. 2 is his heir and legal representative and the present appeal is pr...
Tag this Judgment!Doulatram Lekhraj Rupchandani Vs. the General Manager
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1210
Tendolkar, J. 1. This is a petition by a servant of the Western Railway complaining against an order dated July 30, 1956, terminating his services under Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice. The petitioner was selected by the Joint Service Commission of Railways as Ticket Collector and appointed to that post on November 20, 1953, and was confirmed in the post on July 1, 1956. It appears that early in 1956 the Vigilance Branch of the Railway had certain suspicions against the conduct of the petitioner, the suggestion being that he waspassing, on used tickets as unused tickets to persons who were in a position to re-sell these tickets at the stations at which the tickets were issued and sharing the profits half and half. In this connection, there was admittedly a preliminaryenquiry, at which the petitioner was also called and asked certain questions; but as a result of this preliminary enquiry no charge-sheet was presented to the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »