Mumbai Court April 1957 Judgments
Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Mr. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR769
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Act LX of 1952). The notification set up a Commission consisting of Mr. Justice Tendolkar, N.R. Modi and S.C. Chaudhuri. It gave reasons for the appointment of the Commission and set out the matters into which the Commission was to inquire and make a report. The notification is in the following terms :-New Delhi, the 11th December 1956S.R.0. 2993-Whereas it has been made to appear to the Central Government that-(1) a largo number of companies and some firms were promoted, and/or controlled by Sarvashri Ramkrishna Dalmia, Jaidayal Dalmia, Shanti Prasad Jain, Sriyans Prasad Jain, Shital Prasad Jain or some on e or more of them and by others being either relatives or employees of the said person or persons, closely connected with the said persons ;(2) large amounts were subscribed by the investing public in the shares of some of these companies ;(3) there have boon gr...
Tag this Judgment!Chhangamal Harpaldas and anr. Vs. Dominion of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom276; (1957)59BOMLR704; ILR1957Bom647
Shah, J. 1. The plaintiffs, who are commission agents residing at Delhi have by this appeal challenged the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon in Special Suit No. 12 of 1950 dismissing their suit against the Dominion of India. 2. The facts which give rise to the claim made by the plaintiffs are briefly these : One Malhari Bhika loaded a wagon at Kajgaon station on the Central Railway with raw plantains and obtained Parcel Way Bill No. 7934/79 on 21st October 1948 for carriage of the consignment to Delhi. The goods loaded by Malhari Bhika were then sold to Peer Mahomed and Sons. The Parcel Way Bill was obtained in the name of Malhari Bhika as consignor and consignees were the plaintiffs. The Forwarding Note is Exhibit 93, dated 21st October 1948, and by that Forwarding Note Malhari Bhika requested the Station Master at Kajgaon to receive and forward by passenger train the parcel described therein to Delhi Junction Station at reduced rates as per Risk Note on th...
Tag this Judgment!Khurshidali Ehsanali Vs. Gujab Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR873
Gokhale, J.1. In both these revisions an identical point of law is involved and it arises in this way. In Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1957 one Gujab Laxman of Antargaon filed a complaint under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and one another. The value of the stolen property was stated to be about Rs. 40 in the complaint. After preliminary examination the trial Magistrate registered an offence under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, only, against all the six accused persons. On this, the accused filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate under Section 72 of the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946, contending that as an offence under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, alone was registered against them after preliminary enquiry, the learned trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction, but he should transfer the case to the Nyaya Panchayat of the village under Section 72 of the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act. This contention w...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Sampat Shewale Vs. Jalgaon Borough Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1088
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by two elected Councillors of the Jalgaon Borough Municipality, challenging a resolution of the municipality appointing respondent No. 2 as a Chief Officer of the municipality for a period of two years.2. A few facts must he stated. The municipality has 35 Councillors, out of whom some 16 Councillors resigned in February 1956, on the issue of Sam-yukta Maharashtra. In the vacancies caused by these resignations, bye-elections were held on May 18, 1956, and the results of the elections were declared on May 20, 1956. They were, however, gazetted only on June 8, 1956. Now, it appears that respondent No. 2 was the Chief Officer of the said municipality and under the Rules of the municipality relating to superannuation he was to retire upon attaining the age of 55 years, that is, from September 1, 1956. The relevant rule, however, provided that he could be retained in service after superannuation by a three-fourths majority of the whole number of Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Christopher Pimenta and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom451; (1958)60BOMLR318
ORDER1. The first and the second petitioners were clerks employed by the Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd. immediately prior to 1st September, 1956. The third petitioner was a clerk then employed by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd. The fourth petitioner was a clerk then employed by the Hindus than Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. The fifth petitioner was then employed ns an assistant doing clerical work by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Bombay. The sixth petitioner was a peon then employed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Bombay. The seventh petitioner was then employed as a clerk by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. On 19th January, 1958, the President of India promulgated an Ordinance called The Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956. Under that Ordinance, on and from the appointed day, that is, the 19th January. 1956. the management of the controlled business of all the insurers carrying on life insurance business vested in the Central...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Kashinath Khopkar Vs. A.S. Rangnekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom288; (1957)59BOMLR694; ILR1957Bom863
Tendolkar, J.1. This petition raises a very important & interesting question as to the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority. The petitioner before us is the Secretary of the Wollen Mill Kamgar Union & the second Opponents are the Raymond Woollen Mills, Ltd. It appears that 48 watchmen employed by the second opponents applied for recovering delayed wages to the Payment of Wages Authority, Their case was that they worked as watchmen in three shifts and each of these three shifts was for fifteen days; and in these shifts they were made to work for more than eight hours a day and they were, therefore entitled to overtime wages. The second opponents inter alia contended that in point of fact no over-time work was done by any of the watchmen. The Payment of Wages Authority, being the Joint Civil Judge at Thana, held that he had no jurisdiction to determine this disputed question of fact and, therefore, dismissed the application. It is this order of the Payment of Wages Authority th...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Panduji Maple Vs. D.K. Anwikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1125
Dixit, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question under the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 (I of 1947), and the facts necessary to understand the question are shortly these:2. The applicant is a resident of a village called Saur, and resides in ward No. 3. An election of a Paneh to the Gram Panchayat from ward No. 3 was to be held, and at this election the applicant and opponents Nos. 5 and 6 were the contestants. The election was held on October 18, 1955, and it resulted in the applicant getting the highest number of votes, so that he was declared elected as a Panch, and this was published on November 17, 1955. On November 28, 1955, an election petition was filed whereby the applicant's election was challenged, and the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Amravati, who heard the election petition, declared the applicant's election void, and set aside the same. Pursuant to this order, he directed a fresh election to be held to elect a Panch from ward No. 3 of the Gram Panchayat, S...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nagindas Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom162; (1957)59BOMLR652; 1958CriLJ493; ILR1957Bom858
Vyas, J.1. These are acquittal appeals by the State and they raise a question of construction of Section 62 of the Factories Act 63 of 1948. The question has arisen in this way. On 9th December 1956 Shri J.G.H. Modi, Inspector of Factories, visited C. N. Weaving Works at Surat at 5-15 p.m. and he noticed that certain two persons Raoji Zina and Mahomed Hussein Karimulla were working in the factory, although on inspection of the register for workers it was found that their names were not entered in the register. The State contends that the occupier and the manager of the factory committed an offence under Section 62(1)(a) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act by permitting the abovementioned persons to work in the factory without entering their names in the register for adult workers. It may be noted that the names of Raoji Zina and Mahomed Hussein Karimulla were subsequently entered in the register, but they were not found entered when the Inspector inspected the register. The non-e...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Rajaram Suple and ors. Vs. Sonba Chindhu Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom63; (1957)59BOMLR1205; ILR1958Bom104
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs agaisnt the dismissal of their suit by the lower appellate Court which reversed the decision of the trail Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for establishing their right of way along the western dhura of field Survey No. 361 which belongs to the defendant-respondent. The plaintiffs are the recorded tenants of Khasra Nos. 290 and 360 in absolute occupancy right situated at mouza Mohapa, whereas the defendant is the absolute occupancy tenant of Khasra No. 361, in the same village, which adjoins plaintiffs filed Khasra No. 360. These fields admittedly belonged to the family of Tekades and members of the Tekades family seemed to have sold these fields as well as the other fields which belonged to them to strangers. On 30-1-1919 Gopal's branch of the Tekade family, according to the plaintiffs, sold fields Nos. 362 and 363 to one Amritrao. Then on 26-1-1930, field No. 361 was sold by Dinkar's branch and Pu...
Tag this Judgment!Chintaman Jagannath Kathikar Vs. Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom209; (1958)60BOMLR67; [1958]28CompCas99(Bom)
1. This order will also govern Civil Application No. 354 of 1957. Both these applications have been made under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act (No. 1 of 1956) and the relief claimed in these applications is for the issue of a direction to the non-applicants to produce certain records and registers in the Court and require them to effect a transfer of certain shares in the Register of the Members of the Company.2. A preliminary objection is raised by Shri Dhabe, on behalf of the non-applicants to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain theseapplications.3. Section 10 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, deals with the jurisdiction of Courts in the matter of applications made under that Act. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10, the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate shall be the Court having jurisdiction in regard to the matters arising under the Companies Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »