Mumbai Court November 1957 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.
Gulabchand Rawatmal Vs. Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom158; (1958)60BOMLR337; ILR1958Bom725
Gokhale, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad, direction under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant arising out of a contract, dated 29th May, 1953 may be referred to the Ahmedabad Mill-owners' Association, for their decision as arbitrator. The plaintiff-respondents are the Sarangpur Cotton ., who are Manufacturers of textile goods at Ahmedabad. The defendant-appellants are a firm carrying on business of cloth at Calcutta. It seems that the plaintiffs have a selling agent, namely, Messrs. Balchand Bhawsingka, at Calcutta, and the defendant placed an order for purchasing 15 bales of plaintiff's manufacture through the said selling agents, under an indent bearing No. 630. dated 29th May, 1953. The said indent was signed by the defendant and was accepted on behalf of the plaintiffs by their selling agents. It is the case of the plaintiff that the delivery of the good...
Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh Vs. Central India Spinning, Weaving and M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ339Bom
ORDER1. This is an application made by the recognized union on behalf of the employees of the non-applicant textile mills claiming payment of bonus for the year 1952-53. Similar applications have been filed in respect of bonus for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 against the non-applicant. The union has also filed similar applications against the Model Mills. It has been stated in each of the application that it is an application under S. 22 read with S. 38A of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act and rule 37(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Rules. 2. On behalf of the mills, a preliminary objection has been raised and it is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under S. 22 read with either S. 38A or with rule 37(a). It is contended on behalf of the non-applicant mills that S. 38A has not been made applicable to any industry in Madhya Pradesh by a notification issued under Sub-section (3) ...
State Vs. Masasingh Chandasingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom368; 1959CriLJ1062
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Session Judge, Nagpur, recommending that an order D/-1-5-1957 passed by the Judge-Magistrate Mr. K.W. Kathalay, in Criminal Case No. 74 of 1957, should be set aside. 2. The non-applicant Masasingh was being prosecuted under Section 506(2), Indian Penal Code, and after certain witnesses were examined for the prosecution a charge was framed under that section against him. After the charge prosecution witnesses were called for cross-examination, including there witnesses Harnamsingh, Triloksingh and Balwant singh Setty. It appears that the accused did not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine them which was offered to him. Later, on 26-2-1957 the accused entered upon his defence and put in a list of defence witnesses. A month later, on 26-3-1957, the accused put in an application praying that the three witnesses should be called and he should be permitted to cross-examine them, but the trying Magistrate rejected this application. Thereafter the accus...
Bhavrao Ganpatrao Vs. Bhimrao Tukaramji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom450; (1958)60BOMLR80; 1958CriLJ1383; ILR1958Bom544
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, recommending that the order, dated 27-2-1956 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Basmath-nagar, dismissing a complaint under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, made by the complainant Bhovrao Ganpatrao, should be reversed.2. The facts are as follows: The aforesaid Bhavrao Ganpatrao appeared before the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Basmath-nagar, and lodged information under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code stating that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between him and the opposite side. Acting on the aforesaid information, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was such a dispute which was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Therefore, the learned Magistrate made an order under Section 145 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code stating that he was so satisfied and required the parties concerned in the dis...
Shiwa Karu Vs. Ramlal Kodu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR493
Kotval, J.1 On a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Mudholkar and Mr. Justice Tambe, the following two questions have been referred to me for decision:(i) Whether by virtue of the amendment of Section 11 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920 (I of 1920) by the Central Provinces Act XI of 1940, the son of an occupancy tenant acquires by birth a right to challenge an alienation of an occupancy holding held by the tenant to a stranger; and(ii) whether allowing the son to challenge the alienation amounts to giving retrospective effect to the amending Act.2. The circumstances under which the questions were referred may now be stated. The four fields, the subject-matter of the suit, were originally the property of one Jagu. On his death they were held by his son Kodu who transferred the fields by a sale deed dated March 2, 1948, to the defendant for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 3,000. The plaintiff, a minor, is the son of Kodu, and he sued the defendant through his guardian...
Laxman Shivshankar Kumbhar Vs. Saraswati and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom125; (1958)60BOMLR382; ILR1958Bom869
1. This is an appeal from the order, dated 14-7-1955, passed by the learned District Judge, Sholapur, in appeal No. 178 of 1954, by which he allowed the appeal and remanded the suite No. 48 of 1952 to the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Akalkot, for disposal in accordance with law.2. This appeal raises a short but interesting question about the law of res judicata.3. The respondent No. 1, Saraswati, was the plaintiff in the trial Court. she instituted the aforesaid suit No. 48/52 for a declaration that she was the sole owner of the suit property and for an injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession, or, in the alternative, for possession of the suit property. The allegation was that the suit property belonged to Saraswati's full brother Malkappa's death in 1943, the suit property devolved upon Saraswati's mother Ambawwa; that Ambawwa re-married in 1944; and that, on her remarriage, the property devolved upon the plaintiff Saraswati, ...
Gulabroa Ayaji Deshmukh Vs. Yadavrao Madhavrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR505
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Upon the petition of the non-applicant, the applicant has been adjudged insolvent. An appeal preferred by the applicant against his adjudication having been dismissed by the District Judge, Akola, he has come up to this Court in revision.2. The non-applicant presented a petition for adjudicating the applicant as insolvent on June 14, 1954, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mehkar. The total value of the debts set out by him in the petition was Rs. 2,930. The debts set out by him in the petition were as follows:Rs. 233-8-0 Due under a decree passed in Civil Suit No. 266/53 in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class, Mehkar, on 12-4-54.Rs. 468-0-0 Due under a decree passed by the same Court in Civil Suit No. 16/54, on 23-4-54.Rs. 586-0-0 Under a decree passed by the same Court in Civil Suit No. 12-B/54, on 20-8-54.Rs. 1642-8-0 Being the claim made in a Civil Suit instituted by the non-app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›