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.
Paika Dasaru Vs. Rajeswar Balaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom239; (1958)60BOMLR8
Chagla, C. J. 1. The question that arises in this Full Bench lies in a very narrow compass. The question is : What is the proper construction to be placed upon Section 16(1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act (XXIV of 1951). 2. The few facts which are necessary to state in order to understand the question raised are that that plaintiff and his brother Anandrao owned certain lands and there was a partition suit and pursuant to the decree in the partition suit survey No. 39/2 was allotted to Anandrao and survey No. 39/1 was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff let out survey No 39/1 to the defendant. There was then an appeal and in appeal survey No. 39/1 was allotted to Anandrao and survey No. 39/2 to the plaintitf. The plaintiff then filed a suit from which this application arises, contending that the defendant was not his lessee and he was a trespasser, and claiming possession of the survey No. 39/2. The defence of the defendant was that survey No. 39/2 was let out ...
Gulabrao Keshavrao Dhole Vs. Pandurang Bhanji Dhomne and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom266; (1958)60BOMLR12; ILR1957Bom714
Chagla, C.J.1. This Pull Bench has been necessitated by three election petitions filed by three defeated candidates in an election to the Janapad Sabha, and the question that arises for our determination is with regard to the interpretation and construction of Act I of 1955 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Legislature.2. It appears that the Nagpur High. Court in a Full Bench decision in Kanglu Baula v. Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Sabha Durg ILR 1954 Nag 875: AIR 1955 Nag 49 (A) took the view that the electoral rolls prepared under the relevant Act under which elections to the Janapadsabha were held were not proper and the elections held pursuant to those rolls were void. In order to get over the effect of this decision an Ordinance was passed, being Ordinance 1of 1954 and the Ordinance was substituted sub-sequently by Act I of 1955, the Act in question. It is a short Act and Section 3(1) provides:'(1) Notwithstanding the Order of any Court to the contrary or any provision in the Act r...
Ciba Ltd. Vs. M. Ramalingam and S. Subramaniam Trading in the Name of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom56; (1957)59BOMLR548; ILR1957Bom702
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a trade mark appeal and it came to be filed under the following circumstances. The appellants, who are a Swiss company, applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks on the 2nd July 1942 for registration of their trade marks 'Ciba', 'Ciba' (monogram), 'Cibalgin', 'Ciba-zol' and 'Cibalbumin'. These marks are used in connection with pharmaceutical preparations. The mark 'Ciba' was registered on 24-8-1946, the mark 'Ciba' (monogram) was registered on 27-10-1944, the mark 'Cibalgin' was registered on 16-3-1944, the mark 'Cibazol' was registered on 27-7-1944 and the mark 'Cibalbumin' was registered on 16-3-1944. On the 22nd December 1943 an application was made by the respondents for registration of a label which contained the word 'Cibol'. This application was No. 90423. On the 2nd February 1945 they made two other applications Nos. 105450 and 105451 for registration of design and colour of the same name. The Cibol label was advertised on the 1st November 1947. This trade ...
Nalinkant Bhanushanker Dave Vs. Hiralal Amratlal Parekh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom87; (1958)60BOMLR234; ILR1957Bom553
ORDER1. This is a revision application against anorder of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot, allowing an application made by opponents 1 and 2 Hiralal Amratlal and Ramniklal Amratlal for the removal of Attachment under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P. Code levied by the present applicant Nalinkant Bhanushanker in execution of a money decree obtained by him against opponents 3 to 9 in civil suit No. 70 of 1950 of the Rajkot Civil Court. It is necessary to et out certain facts in order to understand and appreciate the dispute properly. The property attached is a theatre known as 'Nutan Theatre' situated at Rajkot. This property along with other property was owned by opponents 3 to 9 (original defendants 2 to 8) and was mortgaged by them to Hiralal Amratlal, opponent 1, and his brother Jayantilal Amratlal and in suit No. 415 of 1950 of the Rajkot Court the said mortgagees obtained a decree on the mortgage for Rs. 4,95,000 together with costs and further interest. One Nautamlal Chhotalal Tejp...
Ragho Sambhaji Tamboli Vs. Shantabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom274; (1957)59BOMLR999; ILR1958Bom788
1. This is a defendant No. 1's second appeal from the decree for partition of the plaintiff's 1/3rd share in S. No. 98/1 of mauza Umerkhed and mesne profits.2. The relevant facts are as follows: The aforesaid field along with certain other property was the joint family property of Shama of his three sons, Shambhu, Sadashiv and Narayan. Shama died on 22-10-1936. All his sons died before him, Shambhu left a son Ragho, defendant No. 1 to the suit; Sadashiv left a son Kisan, who died in the year 1041, leaving behind his widow Shantabai, the plaintiff to the suit; Narayan left a widow Anjanabai, who is the second defendant to the suit.3. Shama effected a partition of his property in the year 1934. At that partition the field in question fell to the share of Shama. The question has now arisen as to who are the persons who are entitled to succeed to this field as the heirs of Shama.4. According to the plaintiff, upon the death of Shama, her husband Kisan, the defendant No. 1 Ragho, and the de...
Harshadrai Raghunathji Desai Vs. Balubhai Maganlal Batliwala and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom62; (1957)59BOMLR1036; ILR1957Bom818
Dixit, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and it raises an interesting question under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 2. The applicant filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Navsari, to recover possession of a field bearing Survey No. 46 situate in a village called Kabilpur in the Navsari Taluka of the Surat District. The applicant's case was that the first opponent was a trespasser. The trial Court gave the applicant a decree for possession. The matter was taken in appeal in the District Court atSurat and in appeal the learned Assistant Judge who heard the appeal, directed the first opponent to get decided two points: (1) whether the disputed land was agricultural land; and (2) whether the first opponent was a protected. tenant or not. 3. Accordingly, the first opponent filed an application (No. 64 of 1954-55) before the Mamlatdar of Navsari. The applicant filed a written statement raising various contention...
Luvar Popat Kala Vs. Luvar Bachu Rugnath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom152; (1957)59BOMLR671; ILR1957Bom548
1. This second appeal is brought from an order of the Assistant Judge, Morvi, confirming on appeal the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morvi, in suit No. 113 of 1954 holding that the suit was barred as res judicata by reason of the decision in a previous suit No. 176 of 1951. The said suit No. 176/51 was instituted by the present plaintiff-appellant Popat Kala for a declaration that the sale of the 'Bheni' in suit made by Bachu Rugnath defendant 1 of that suit in favour of Ghanchi Kasu Hasan, defendant 2 of that suit, was void and did not affect his rights and for an appropriate injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession alleging that the Bheni was owned exclusively by his father Kala Mavji and that the vendor -- defendant 1 had no interest therein. He (plaintiff) also averred that ha was in possession of the Bheni since about 50 to 60 years. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are near relations. One Mavji had three sons, Kala, Hira and Amba ...
Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom149; (1957)59BOMLR877; ILR1958Bom438; (1957)IILLJ654Bom
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, prohibiting him from recovering from the petitioner contribution towards the Provident Fund under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.2. The admitted facts are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It carries on business of manufacturing hydrogenated vegetable oil named 'Vanasada' and its by-products, such as soap, oil-cakes etc. at Akola under the name and Style of 'Berar Oil. Industries.' it commenced manufacturing its products on 11-10-1948. It also manufactures and markets its vegetable oil after completing all the processes at Akola whereafter the oil is tinned in tin containers of certain sixes. The aforesaid tin containers are fabricated by the petitioner in the precincts of the oil factory. These tin containers are used only for the purpose of packing ...
Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom152; (1957)59BOMLR760; (1958)ILLJ281Bom
Mudiiolkar, J.1. Tin's is a petition under Article 226 of the Constir tution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other writ to the respondent prohibiting him from enforcing the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act,. 1952, against the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are as follows : The principal business of the petitioner is the manufacture of glass. It is also engaged in the business of manufacture of burners and metal lamps (consisting of glass oil containers and globes and metal burners and reflectors). In the year 1952, the Employees' Provident Funds Act was passed. Sub-section (3) of Section 1, of the Act applies to all factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I of the Act provided that they employ fifty or more workers in that industry. The Schedule to the Act however does not include a 'glass industry'.3. By Act 37 of 1953, this Act was amended and an Explanation was added in Schdule I. This Explanation gives a list of industries which are c...
Rangildas Varajdas Khandwala Vs. the Collector of Surat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom270; (1957)59BOMLR527
Tendolkak, J. 1. This is a petition which raises the question of the assessability to land revenue of certain lands which belonged to the petitioner who was an inamdar. Part of his inam lands consisted of survey No. 6 measuring 4 acres 8 gunthas in the village of Athwar, Taluka Choraisi. The village was included in the limits of Surat City, and in the City survey carried on in 1924-25 the said land came to bear City Survey No. 60 Ward No. 13 of the City of Surat. Inam of the said land was- recognised under the Bombay Summary, Settlement Act, 1863, and on the 21st of April. 1879 a Sanad was issued by the Secretary of State-in-Council under the signature of; the Col lector of Surat in which it is stated that the said land is the private property of the Inamdar. In the Register of Alienated Villages and Lands maintained under Section 53 of the Bombay Land Re-venue Code, the land has been described as permanent (enfranchised private property) subject to payment of Rs. 7/- as Salami and Bs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »