Mumbai Court February 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.
Mangaldas Narandas Vs. Payment of Wages Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ256Bom
ORDERShah, J.1. This is a group of special civil applications in which certain orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Ahmedabad, are challenged. The authority has by his order directed payments to be made by the employer to employees found due as delayed wages for the period from 1 July 1955 to 7 July 1955. The order has been challenged by these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. A few facts which give rise to these applications may be stated. The petitioner is the employer and the respondents, except the first respondent in all the applications, are the employees. The petitioner is a manufacturer of bidis. A dispute relating to wages payable to the workmen employed in the manufacture of bidis was, it appears, referred to the industrial court and by an award, made on 8 July 1952, the rate was settled at Rs. 3-6-0 per 1,000 bidis. On 5 January 1955 the employer served a notice of change upon the employees intimating that as from 10 March 1955 the ra...
Hirabai Ramchandra Vs. Ramchandra Rawoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom26; (1957)59BOMLR525; ILR1957Bom806
Tendolkar, J. 1. This is a civil revision application against an order of Judge Mehta of the City Civil Court allowing an amendment of the plaint in a matrimonial cause. The petition was originally filed for judicial separation by reason of desertion by the defendant, who is the wife of the plaintiff, for four years under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The amendment that was applied for was for a divorce on the ground of desertion under the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, alleging that the wife had deserted the husband from August 1949. 2. Now, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, only judicial separation can be obtained on the ground of desertion and not divorce; and what is urged before us by Mr. Kadam is that the learned Judge erred in granting leave to amend the petition to the husband, because, ac-cording to him, the petitioner not having availed himself of the provisions of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act before it was repealed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he should not be allowed...
Parashram Damodhar Vaidya Vs. the State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom252; (1957)59BOMLR616
Shah, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of village Pali in the district of Thana, is a landlord owning 135 acres of Kharif lands and 70 acres of Warkas lands in the villages of Bhusegaib, Tighar, Nangurle, Venagaon, Parada, Dahigaon, Sapele, Vave, Vavaloli, Tambus and Avalas in Karjat Taluka of Kolaba district. The petitioner pay Rs. 990/-as assessment and local fund cess for the aforesaid lands. In this application the petitioner contents that Bombay Act 13 of 1956, which purports to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, is invalid. The petitioner urges that when Bill No. 34 of 1955, which subsequently was published as Act 13 of 1956, was submitted to the President for his assent, the President suggested certain alterations, but the bill was not returned to the Legislature of the State of Bombay and was published as an Act: and as the provisions of Art. 201 of the Constitution of India were contravened the Bill was not validly enacted as law. He also contends that t...
Jankibai Abaji Pawaskar Vs. Bhikaji Raghunath Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR610
Gokhale, J.1. These two revision applications have been preferred by theoriginal debtor, one Jankibai, against the order passed by thelearned District Judge, Ratnagiri, dismissing her two appeals onthe ground that they were not competent under the provisions ofthe Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947.2. The petitioner Jankibai was indebted to one RaghunathChavan, the father of the opponents, on a mortgage. There was anapplication for adjustment of debts, in respect of this mortgageunder the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, (whichwill hereafter be referred to as the Act) and that resulted in anaward against Jankibai which was obtained by the creditor inB.A.D.R. Application No. 859 of 1957 on April 16, 1952. The amountof the award, which was made payable to the creditor, was Rs. 728,to be paid by yearly instalments of Rs. 100 each, the firstinstalment commencing from January 1, 1953. Two instalments of Rs.100 each were paid by the debtor, but as the subsequent instal...
Yeshwant Govardhan Vs. Totaram Avasu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom28; (1957)59BOMLR659; ILR1957Bom801
Dixit, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant to recover from the defendants-respondents a sum of Rs. 2,884-14-0 on account of a lease. The lease was executed under the following circumstances. The lands which are the subject-matter of the lease are three fields bearing survey Nos. 28/1, 30 and 31. These lands are of the ownership of the plaintiff. On 8th February 1946 the plaintiff granted a lease to the defendants for a period of five years at a rent of Rs. 1,100 per year. On 11th April 1946, the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, was made applicable to the locality in which the lands are situate. As a result of the operation of Section 23 the lease, though limited to a pe-riod of five years, became a lease for a period of ten years. On 24th January 1947, the defendants surrendered the three lands and possession was given to the plaintiff. An endorsement was made to that effect upon the lease. In 1947-48 the plaintiff cultivated these lands. In 1948, however, the...
Abdul Rahiman JamaluddIn Vs. Vithal Arjun and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom94; (1957)59BOMLR579
Shah, J.1. The petitioner challenges by this application the vires of Section 34(2A)(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended by Section 8(3) of Bombay Act 33 of 1952.2. The facts which give rise to the petition may be set out: The lands in dispute are Section NOS. 13 and 21 of the village of Purar and belong to the petitioner Abdul Rahiman Jamal-uddin Hurjuk. The first respondent is a protected tenant of these lands. The petitioner filed Tenancy Application No. 29 of 1954-55 in the Court of the Mamlatdar of Mangaon, District Kolaba, for an order against the first respondent for possession under Section 29(2) read with Section 34(l)(i) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, alleging that the petitioner had a large family and that the income derived as rent from his other lands was not adequate for the maintenance of the members of his family and that he wanted the suit lands for personal cultivation. The petitioner submitted that he had ter...
Pandurang Rama Vs. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Central Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR675
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who was holding a post of a fitter and went on leave for two months. He rejoined at the end of the leave on May 21, 1954, and it appears that on May 23, 1954, he did not attend the Office on the ground that May 23, was a rest day for him. He did not subsequently resume his duties until May 28. On that date he produced a certificate from a railway doctor that he was fit to resume his duties, the certificate having been actually given by the doctor on May 27. A notice was then served upon him to show cause why because of certain conduct alleged to be misconduct, action should not be taken against him, the action mentioned being permanent reversion to the post of Basic Fitter in the grade of Rs. 35-60 per month. The notice also called upon him to show cause why any lesser penalty should not be inflicted. The petitioner gave his explanation and it appears that subsequently respondent No. 1, who is the D...
The Anglo French Drug Co., (Eastern) Private Ltd. Vs. R.D. Tinaikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom21; (1957)59BOMLR1019
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The appeal raises a very interesting question as regards the right of a Registered Trade Marks agent to plead before the Registrar of Trade Marks.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent to this appeal filed an application under the Trade Marks Act for registering a certain trade mark in respect of certain pharmaceutical preparations. The petitioners opposed the said application. Evidence by way of affidavits was filed by both the parties in the case. The case ultimately came up for hearing before the Deputy Registrar of trade Marks, who was discharging the functions of the Registrar of Trade Marks under the said Act. At the hearing the respondent was represented by Mr. P.S. Pai, a Registered Trade Marks Agent. at the hearing which took place before the Deputy Registrar of Trade marks on 4-11-1955, the advocate for the pe...
Narrondas Manordass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom35; (1957)59BOMLR511; ILR1957Bom512
Chagla, C. J.1. This reference raises a rather important and interesting question as to the powers which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can exercise when an appeal is preferred by an assessee against an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer.2. The assesses was carrying on a business in Bombay and in Rajkot and the accounting year of the Bombay and Rajkot business were different and therefore there was some overlapping of income. With regard to the profits of Rajkot, the Income-tax Officer assessed them proportionately at Rs. 1,17,643. He also considered the remittances made from Rajkot to Bombay and determined the amount at Rs. 4,00,000. He considered whether this remittance was liable to tax and came to the conclusion, in view of the concession allowed in Part B States Concession Order, that this sum was not liable to tax. The appeal of the assessee was confined to the profit of Rs. 1,17,643 and its case was that the Rajkot business had suffered a loss of Rs. 61,071. The App...
Narrondas Manordass, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR909(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a rather important and interesting question as to the powers which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can exercise when an appeal is preferred by an assessee against an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. 2. The assessee was carrying on a business in Bombay and in Rajkot and the accounting years of the Bombay and Rajkot business were different and therefore there was some overlapping of income. With regard to the profits of Rajkot, the Income-tax Officer assessed them proportionately at Rs, 1,17,643. He also considered the remittances made from Rajkot to Bombay and determined the amount at Rs. 4,00,000. He considered whether this remittance was liable to tax and came to the conclusion, in view of the concession allowed in the Part B States Concession Order, that this sum was not liable to tax. The appeal of the assessee was confined to the profit of Rs. 1,17,643, and its case was that the Rajkot business had suffered a loss of Rs. 61,071. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »