Mumbai Court June 1957 Judgments
Waman Balkrishna Bokare Vs. the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom142; (1958)60BOMLR55; ILR1958Bom184
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Inspector of Central Excise by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay on 1-3-49 and was probation. After completion of the probationary period o he was placed in the regular time-scale for the post. On 11-4-1953 he was served with an order of the Collector dismissing him from service. He appealed from that order to the Central Board of Revenue. His appeal was allowed and he was reinstated in his post immediately. The decision of the Board of Revenue was communicated to the petitioner on 29-11-1954. On the same date a notice terminating his services within one month was served upon him. From the date of the expiry of the period stated in the notice, the petitioner ceased to function in his post.2. He has now come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the action taken against him amounts to his removal or dismissal from service and as such the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution ...
Tag this Judgment!Waman Balakrishna Bokare Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ386Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Inspector of Central Excise by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, on 1 March 1949, and was on probation. After completion of the probationary period he was placed in the regular time-scale for the post. On 11 April 1953, he was served with an order of the collector dismissing from service. He appealed from that order to the Central Board of Revenue. His appeal was allowed and he was reinstated in his post immediately. The decision of the Board of Revenue was communicated to the petitioner on 29 November 1954. On the same date notice terminating his services within one month was served upon him. From the date of expiry of the period stated in the notice, the petitioner ceased to function in his post. 2. He has now come up to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the action taken against him amounts to his removal or dismissal from service and as such the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution ...
Tag this Judgment!Rayagonda Anna Patil Vs. Jankibai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom468; (1958)60BOMLR788; ILR1959Bom1168
Vyas J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal and it is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Kolhapur in Special Civil Suit Ni. 17 of 1951. By this decree the learned Judge has ordered the suit of the plaintiff to be dismissed. The learned Judge has made no order as to costs.2. The plaintiff has field the present suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1951, for specific performance by execution of a sale-deed of an agreement which was arrived at between himself (plaintiff) and defendant No. 1 on 30th December 1945, and for possession of the suit properties or in the alternative to recover a sum of Rs. 32,840-10-0 as damages together with future interest and cots of the suit.3. A few facts leading up to the present litigation may be stated. On 30th December 1945, an agreement took place between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, which agreement was reduced to writing and was to the effect that defendant No. 1 would sell the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Cotton Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR836; (1957)IILLJ490Bom
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises a rather important question as to the powers of the Government to direct under Section 114(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, that an award passed under the provisions of Section 115A should be applied to certain employers who were not parties to the dispute. There was an industrial dispute between the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the Textile Mills on the question of bonus, and a reference was made to the Industrial Court under Section 73A. Petitioner No. 1 company, which was also a party to that dispute, represented to the Tribunal that its case should be separately considered from the case of other mills inasmuch as it has been making losses from 1950 onwards, and as far as it was concerned no question of paying bonus to the employees could arise. The reference, therefore, was separated with regard to petitioner No. 1 company. While the reference was pending, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the Mill Owners Association ente...
Tag this Judgment!Motiram Raoji Gujar Vs. Sidram Tippanna Kavachale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1076
Tendolkar, J.1. This petition raises a neat question of law arising out of an order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. The petitioner before us is the landlord and it appears that in 1951 he applied for possession of the land from the tenant, who is respondent No. 1, on the ground of default in payment of rent for three years 1948-49 to 1950-51. At that time the view prevalent in the Tenancy Courts was-that a notice to terminate the tenancy was necessary in such cases and acting on that view the Mamlatdar dismissed the application of the landlord for failure to give such notice. The landlord appealed against that dismissal, but he withdrew the appeal. Thereafter he gave a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy on August 16, 1951, and again applied to the Mamlatdar for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent for the same three years as on the prior occasion. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the tenant was that the second petition was barred by the principle o...
Tag this Judgment!The Provincial Transport Services Vs. N.H. Muzumdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR366
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order, to respondent No. 1, the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, requiring it to follow an appropriate procedure during the enquiry of the industrial dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent No. 2 on the other.2. The relevant facts are briefly as follows : Respondent No. 2 made an application before the State Industrial Court at Nagpur under Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, for adjudication of certain demands made by it and specified in Schedule A appended to that application. It is common ground that a number of those demands pertain to the wages and emoluments of the workers employed in the Motor Transport Industry. The jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court was challenged on behalf of the petitioner on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the dispute, if any, lay wi...
Tag this Judgment!Chotmal Ganeshram Bharadia Vs. Ramchand Tarachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom137; (1957)59BOMLR828; ILR1958Bom165
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee who dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the preliminary issue of limitation.2. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendants employed him as their commission agent to enter into transactions in various commodities in the Samvat Year 1993-1994 (i.e. 1936-37) and that he acted as their commission agent upto 1938-39. The accounts between the plaintiff and the defendants upto Samvat Year 1994 were according to the plaintiff made up and adjusted on the 4th August, 1937. There were further transactions between the parties and the suit is in respect both of the adjustment and the subsequent transactions.3. Now, there is no dispute that prima facie the suit is barred. The suit was filed on the 24th January, 1953 in respect of transactions which were completed in 1939. The plaintiff sought to bring the suit within time by relying on Section 13 of the Limitation Act and his averment in para 9 or the plaint was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Bhaskar Vs. Kashiram Vithoba and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom201; (1958)60BOMLR92; ILR1958Bom340
ORDER1. This Civil Revision arises out of an application presented by the applicant under Order 46, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge before whom the application was moved rejected it. 2. On 28-12-1954 there was passed a decree against the applicant, and one Jagdeo, awarding to the non-Applicant Kashiram Rs. 500/- on account of mesne profits of immoveable property for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and costs. The decree was passed ex parte, the applicant not appearing at any stage of the suit. 3. The non-applicant No. 1 sought execution of the decree, attached the applicant's field and had it sold in auction. It was at this stage that the applicant put in the application to the District Judge. The ground on which he claimed to set aside the ex parte decree was that Mr. D R. Gomkale, Civil Judge, Class II, Khamgaon, who tried that suit on the regular side had no Juris-diction to decide that suit in view of Article 31 of the second Schedule to the Provincial Small ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Ranchchoddas Koticha Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1957
Reported in: [1957]27CompCas604(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. It is with considerable uneasiness of mind and a sinking feeling in the heart that we approach this appeal and the proposal of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., that they should be permitted by an amendment of their memorandum of association to make contributions to political parties. Democracy in this country is nascent and it is necessary that that democracy should be looked after, tended and nurtured so that it should rise to its full and proper stature. Therefore, any proposal or suggestion which is likely to strangle that democracy almost in its cradle must be looked at not only with considerable hesitation but with a great deal of suspicion. Now, democracy is a political system which ensures decisions by discussion and debate, but the discussion and debate must be conducted honestly and objectively and the decisions must be arrived at on merits without being influenced or actuated by any extraneous consideration. On first impression it would appear that any attempt o...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Ranchhoddas Koticha and ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom155; (1957)59BOMLR738; ILR1958Bom149
Chagla, C.J.1. It is with considerable uneasiness of mind and a sinking feeling in the heart that we approach this appeal and the proposal of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. that they should be permitted by an amendment of their Memorandum of Association to make contributions to political parties. Democracy in this country is nascent and it is necessary that that democracy should be looked after, tended and nurtured so that it should rise to its full and proper stature. Therefore, any proposal or suggestion which is likely to strangle that democracy almost in its cradle must be looked at not only with considerable hesitation but with a great deal of suspicion. Now, democracy is a political system which ensures decisions by discussion and debate, but the discussion and debate must be conducted honestly and objectively and the decisions must be arrived at on merits without being influenced or actuated by any extraneous considerations. On first impression it would appear that any attempt o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »