Mumbai Court March 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.
Valaja Govinda Saravanabavananthan Vs. the Exchange Bank of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom100; (1957)59BOMLR586; ILR1957Bom559
Chagla, C.J.1. The appellant's claim was allowed in the liquidation of the respondent Bank as an ordinary creditor and he took out a summons claiming that he was entitled to be treated as a creditor who should be paid in priority to the other creditors because the amount of Rs. 30,199/- in respect of which his claim was allowed was held by the Bank in trust for him. The facts are that on 18th April 1949 the appellant delivered to the Madras Branch of the respondent Bank four bills of exchange for collection at Aden. On 25th April 1949 three of these bills were collected and the fourth bill was collected on 26th April 1949, and the aggregate amount of these four bills is the amount of Rs. 30,199/-. The respondent Bank received intimation that these bills were collected on 2nd May 1949 and on that very day a petition was presented for the winding up of the respondent Bank and a winding up order was made. On these facts the learned Judge held that the appellant was not entitled to be trea...
Mehta Dipchand Vakhatchand Vs. Dave Madhusudan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom269; (1957)59BOMLR367; ILR1957Bom571
ORDER1. The dispute in this revision application relates to the computation of advocate's fees, under the Rules of the former Saurashtra High Court, in an application for filing an award under Sections 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The applicant filed the said application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division. Surendrana-Bar, and it was numbered as a suit, being suit No. 193 of 1954. The opponents raised various objections and one of these was that it was not competent to the applicant to file the award in Court and eventually the learned Judge dismissed the application, that is to say, refused to file the award but at the same time he ordered a decree to be drawn up and therein the advocate's fees were computed on an ad valorem basis of the sum in dispute. The applicant then applied to the Court for amending the decree in this regard by computing the advocate's fees under Rule VI of the Appendix to Part I (attached to Rule 109) of the Saurashtra High Court Rules, conten...
Kamala Nair Vs. Narayana Pillai Kumaran Nair
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom12; (1957)59BOMLR536; ILR1957Bom557
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of a marriage. The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband and the appellant's allegation in the plaint is that she and her husband are 'Nairs' of Travancore and are governed by the 'Marumakathayam Law' as modified by the Nair Act of Travancore and that is the personal law of the parties. The ground for dissolution of marriage is desertion, legal cruelty and incompatibility of temperament, and in the jurisdiction clause the appellant avers that the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. When the matter came before Mr. Justice Coyajee, he took the view that in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore he ordered that the suit should be transferred to the City Civil Court which according to him was the only forum which could entertain this suit. The learned Judge took th...
Hiralal Panachand Shah Vs. N.L. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom256; (1958)60BOMLR991
ORDER1. The Petitioner in this case is a tobacco merchant. He is a member of the Indian Tobacco Merchants He is a member of the Indian Tobacco Merchants Association Limited. He owns a ware-house and holds the requisite licences under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and the Central Excise Rules. 1944 in connection with the said warehouse. On 9-6-1956, the petitioner submitted to the Range Officer, Central Tobacco Warehouse, an application in Form A.R. 1 for the clearance of one bale of red chopadia whole leaf tobacco from the said warehouse. On 12-6-1956 he made a similar application in respect of another such bale. On 13-6-1956 he submitted a third application in respect of four similar bales. The Range Officer calculated the rate of duty leviable in respect of the goods mentioned in each of the said applications at 6 annas per lb. On 26-6-1956 the petitioner attended the office of the Central Excise, Central Tobacco Warehouse, Bombay, for getting the said applications countersi...
Narayan Vyankatrao Vs. Ramchandra Narayanrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom146; (1957)59BOMLR763; ILR1957Bom724
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question referred to this Full Bench by the Division Bench is whether a guardian of a Hindu adult under disability can alienate the property of the adult for legal necessity.2. A Full Bench of this Court in Tiilsidas v. Haisinghji : AIR1933Bom15 , held that under Hindu Law a de faeto guardian of 3 minor can validly sell the property of a minor to a third person for legal necessity. The decision of the Full Bench was a majority judgment of Mr. Justice Palkar and Mr. Justice Barlee, Sir John Beaumont, Chief Justice, dissenting. Since then the decision of the majority has come to be accepted as established law and the Federal Court in Sriramulu v. Pundarikakshayya , in the judgment of Mr. Justice Fazi Ali at p, 84 (of FCR): (at p. 223 of AIR) states ; 'It may novv be taken to be well settled by a long course of decisions that the de facto guardian has, in case of necessity or for the benefit of the minor, power to charge, mortgage or sell the minor's property.'3. This ...
Mahadeo Raoji Vs. Anant Ganesh Bhagwat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom147; (1957)59BOMLR766; ILR1958Bom793
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that falls to be considered by this Full Bench is a very short one and refers to the construction of Section 13(3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act (24 of 1939). Under Section 13 (1) of that Act, if an instalment which has been fixed by the Debt Relief Court is not paid on the duo date, the creditor is given the power to apply within eighteen months from the date of the default to the Deputy Commissioner or such other officer as may be appointed in that behalf by the Provincial Government for the recovery of that instalment as an anear of land revenue, and the Deputy Commissioner or such other revenue officer has been given the power to recover such instalment as an arrear of land revenue. Under Sub-section (2), if the instalment or part thereof is irrecoverable, the Deputy Commissioner or other revenue officer has to certify the irrecoverability, and under Sub-section (3) if an instalment or part thereof is certified as irrecove...
Balabhau Manaji Vs. Bapuji Satwaji Nandanwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom233; (1958)60BOMLR18; ILR1957Bom728
Chagla, C.J.1. Miscellaneous Petition No. 147 of 1955 was filed before a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Hidayatullah and Mr. Justice Mangalmurti for an order to quash an order-passed by the Civil Court dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner, and the Bench referred two questions to a Full Bench (1) Whether Section 242 of the Madhya PradeshLand Revenue Code, 1954, is ultra vires the Constitution for the reason that it creates discrimination between person whose suits were filed before 25-3-1951 and those whose suite were filed alter that date and (2) whether the third sub-section of the impugned section involves exercise of judicial power and not legislative power? The facts on which this petition was based are briefly these. On the 15-3-1053 the respondent purchased survey Nos. 103/1 and 105/1. The petitioner was a co-occupant of survey No. 103/2 and 105/2 and he filed a suit on 15-6-1954 under Chapter XIV of the Kerar Land Revenue Code claiming his right of pre-emptio...
The State Vs. Dhirajlal Maneklal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR645
Vyas, J.1. This reference raises a short but rather an interesting point of law, and the point of law is as to the construction of Sub-section (4) of Section 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (4) says:The Magistrate shall then proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged;...and the point is whether under this sub-section it is obligatory upon the prosecution to produce before the Magistrate at the stage of the committal inquiry all or any of the persons who might have witnessed the actual commission of the offence or whether it is left to the discretion of the prosecution to decide about it.2. There is no doubt that under this sub-section the Magistrate is bound to take the evidence of such persons as are produced before him by the prosecution as being witnesses to the actual commission of the offence, The subject of controversy is whether the prosecution is bound ...
Khushalrao Balaji Fasge Vs. Deorao Umaji Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1136
Gokhale, J.1. These; two appeals arc 'filed by common plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suits by the lower appellate Court except to the extent of annual rent for one year in. one suit which has been awarded to the plaintiffs. The suit'; have arisen, out of pre-emption proceedings. One Rukhma-nand Premsukh. who is not a party to these suits, was an absolute occupancy tenant of two fields bearing Nos. 73/74 called. Chikna and 79/80 called Khari. These two fields were sold, by the tenant to respondents-defendants for Rs. 5,000 on November 28, 1942.2. Under the Central Provinces Tenancy Act No. 1 of 1920 as amended up todate (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Tenancy Act) a tenant cannot transfer an absolute occupancy without reference to Ms landlord except in certaincases. There is no dispute that Khushal, appellant No. 1, is the lambardar landlord, and as the absolute occupancies in these two fields came to be transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Tena...
Shree Yamuna Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Majoor Mahajan Mandal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom74; (1957)59BOMLR1046; ILR1958Bom76; (1957)ILLJ620Bom
Tendolkar, J.1. These two applications which are both by the Shri Yamuna Mills Co. Ltd., Baroda raise a somewhat important question of law regulating the relations between an employer and hisemployees. The question, shortly stated, is what precisely is the effect on these relations by the termination of a registered agreement or a settlement or an award by a requisite notice under the provisions of Section 116 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.2. A few facts which are material may be stated. The relations between the petitioner-mills and its employees were governed by an award made by C. N. Patel, J. of Barodaon 30th July 1949. The award was to remain in force for a period of six months. On 13th April 1950 the representative union of the employees gave a notice of change under Section 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and on 6th July 1950 the matter was referred to the Industrial Court, the dispute relating inter alia to wage scales and gratuity, which are the mat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »