Mumbai Court December 1957 Judgments
The State of Bombay Vs. Mishrilal Onkardas Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR560
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The opponent has a two-storeyed house in Jilha Peth and the first floor was requisitioned in 1949 and it was derequisitioned on March 6, 1951. The plaintiff then filed the suit from which this civil revisional application arises claiming damages for loss caused to his property in that a kitchen was installed on the first floor and also some other damage was caused to window panes etc. He claimed a sum of Rs. 425. The trial Court decreed the claim to the extent of Rs. 100 and the lower appellate Court confirmed that decree. The State of Bombay has come in this revision contending that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.2. Section 9 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, provides that when the requisitioned land is released from requisition, the land shall be restored as far as possible in the same condition in which it was on the date on which the State Government was put in possession thereof and the State Government shall pay compensation for de...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. Municipal Committee, Khamgaon and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom260; (1958)60BOMLR767; ILR1960Bom225
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Abdul Rahim Khan prays for a writ of certiorari Quashing the order dated 13-4-1957 made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Khamgaon, second respondent hereto, as well as the order of the Municipal Committee Khamgaon, first respondent hereto, dismissing him from service. He also prays for a writ of mandamus to the first respondent directing it that the petitioner be reinstated in the service as and from the date of his dismissal with all his attendant rights, privileges and benefits.2. The petitioner was employed in the service of the first respondent on 12-5-1953, under the orders of the President of the first respondent, as a Correspondence Clerk on a probation for one year. His pay scale was 40-1-50-bar-2-70. In addition to the pay, the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs. 30/- per month as Compensatory Cost of Living Allowance. On 21-7-1953, the petitioner was posted as an Audit Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdhar Buwa Vs. Umakant Bhimrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom310; (1958)60BOMLR687; ILR1958Bom1052
ORDER1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code of an order of the Court below holding that the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction.2. The non-applicant Umakant had instituted a suit against his mother and the applicant Rajdhar Buwa for accounts. He had valued the suit for courtrfee and for Jurisdiction at Rs. 100/. In the schedule to the plaint ho has stated that during the years in which the applicant was in possession of the property a net saving of Rs. 51,948-9-3 must have been made by him. On the basis of this statement it was contended by the applicant before the Court below that the valuation for jurisdiction should have been Rs. 51,948-9-3 and that the same should have been the valuation for Court-fee. This contention was not accepted by the Court below. He has therefore come up in revision.3. in support of his argument Shri Chan-durkar, learned counsel for the applicant, relies upon a decision of Vy...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Kalipada Mukerjee Vs. Corporation of the City of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR760; (1959)ILLJ497Bom
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India made by one Bijoy Kalipada Mukerji in which he prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur dated 9 February, 1957, approval of the Government thereto accorded on 16 July, 1957, and the consequent order issued by the Chief Executive Officer on 17 July 1957. The petitioner was appointed as Public Health Officer of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, respondent 1 hereto, on 24 November, 1952, for a period of five years subject to a probation period of one year and subject to the petitioner executing an agreement in writing. We are informed that the petitioner has not executed any agreement. The question of the confirmation of the petitioner came up before the Corporation at its meeting held on 6 October, 1954. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, respondent 2 hereto, at the meeting reported that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. The House...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Gaman Vs. Bai Rukhaiyabibi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom474; (1958)60BOMLR613; ILR1958Bom894
Dixit, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it arises under the following circumstances.2. Opponent No. 1 to this petition is the owner of four pieces of land bearing survey Nos. 133, 134, 140 and 141 situate at Palod in the Mangrol taluka, of which the present petitioner is the tenant. On 10-3-1952 the first opponent as the land-lady issued a notice to the applicant-tenant terminating his tenancy with effect from 31-3-1953 on the ground of bona fide personal cultivation under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. As the notice was not complied with, the first opponent filed against the applicant an application for possession of the suit lands on 4-4-1953. This application was rejected by the Mamlatdar on 10-11-1953, holding that the name of the land-lady i.e., the first opponent was net entered in the record of rights on 1-1-1952. From this order an appeal was preferred before the Prant Officer, who confirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaling Gangadhar Tambekar Vs. Navnitlal Amritlal Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR374
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner is the landlord and the opponent is the tenant. The petitioner filed a suit in the civil Court complaining that the tenant had used the premises as business premises when they were intended to be used as residential premises, that for the purpose of his business, which is of manufacturing exercise books, he had installed cutting and ruling machines and the working of these machines had caused damage to the petitioner's property. He, therefore, prayed for damages and also a mandatory injunction for the removal of these machines. The trial Court held that one of the two machines had caused and would cause damage to the property of the landlord. He, therefore, issued a mandatory injunction upon the tenant to remove the cutting machine. The tenant appealed and the learned Assistant Judge, Poona, came to the conclusion that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that this was a suit that fell under the Rent Restriction Act (Act LVII of 1947) ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangabai Krishna Badgujar Vs. Shankar Hari Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR425
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting point arises on this civil revisional application. The opponent applied to the Bombay Agriculture Debtors Relief Court to have his debts adjusted, and the two statutory issues that he was a debtor and that the total amount of debts due from him on the date of the application was not more than Rs. 15,000 were found in his favour. He challenged two oral sales effected in favour of creditor No. 1 and creditor No. 3. The date of both the oral sales was March 16, 1934. Now, the case of the debtor was that these sales were only ostensible sales and that the transactions were in the nature of mortgage. In view of the decision in Jibhaoo Harising v. Ajabsing : AIR1953Bom145 , it is now settled that an oral sale is a nullity, but the consideration constitutes a charge upon the property, and the Court in that case held that in respect of the consideration, the debtor was indebted to the vendor and, therefore, that debt could be adjusted. The debtor wanted...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Manohar Ramchandra Gupta Vs. Narayan Sadashio Phutane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1012
Mudholkar1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal by the lower appellate Court of their suit for a declaration that a certain amount lying in deposit with the Divisional Engineer, Government Electricity Department, Nagpur, was not liable to attachment in execution of a decree obtained by respondent No. 1 as against respondent No. 3.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. Respondent No. 3 took a contract for constructing certain buildings at Pulgaon from the Divisional Engineer, Government Electricity Department, Nagpur. That was in the month of October 1949. He deposited a sum of Rs. 4,500 with the Divisional Engineer as security for the performance of the contract. This amount was eventually raised to Rs. 8,000. The difference between this amount and the original deposit was agreed to be made good by deducting 10 per cent, from the running bills. It is common ground that ultimately an amount of Rs. 8,394 lay with the Divisional Engineer by way of security to the credit ...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Keshavlal Motichand Vs. Assistant Judge, Junagadh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom194; (1959)61BOMLR124; ILR1958Bom1282
D.V. Vyas, J.1. This is petition under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and it is filed by Shah Keshavlal Motichand. The relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition is that the Judgment of the Assistant Judge in Civil Appeal No. 237 of 1956, which is pronounced on the 19th January 1957, be quashed. A further relief which is sought by the petitioner is that the order passed by the Board reducing his (Petitioner's) dues to Rs. 1954-8-4- for secured debts and to Rs. 1158-9-0 for the unsecured debts, be also quashed. A direction is sought from this Court to the Board that the Board should accept the debt which was admitted by the debtors and should proceed to pass the award on the basis of admitted debts. 2. This application raises an interesting point of law, and the point is whether the Board constituted under Section 5 of the Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, No. XXIII of 1952, is a Court within the meaning of the expression 'Subor...
Tag this Judgment!The Telangkhedi Co-operative Dairy Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Deput ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom330; (1958)60BOMLR757; ILR1958Bom1047
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The first petitioner, the Telangkhedi Co-operative Dairy Society, Nagpur, is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. 1912 (II of 1912) hereinafter called the Act. The second petitioner is the President of the said Society, elected in the year 1956, and the third petitioner is the Secretary of the said Society.2. On 18-9-56 the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, made an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, requiring the Society to make certain amendmentsto its bye-laws in accordance with the proposals enclosed along with the order. It appears that on receipt of this notice the Secretary of the Society wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies seeking an interview. This letter was replied to by the Deputy Registrar by the letter dated 29th September 1956 whereby he informed the Society that the persons seeking intervi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »