Mumbai Court July 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.
Rajani Prabhakar Lokur Vs. Prabhakar Raghavendra Lokur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom264; (1957)59BOMLR1169; ILR1958Bom577
Vyas, J.1. This appeal raises a question under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the question is one of construction of Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. This question arises upon the following facts. 2. The appellant in this appeal is the wife of the respondent No. 1 and she has filed this appeal from a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, in Petition No. 12 of 1955 made by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the decree passed by the learned Judge, the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1, Prabhakar Raghavendra Lokur has been dissolved. In other words, it is a divorce decree. It has been further ordered by the decree that respondent No. 1 husband shall recover costs of the petition from respondent No. 2 who is the co-respondent in this case. The wife and the co-respondent have been ordered to bear their own costs. It is from this decree that the wife has filed the present appeal. 3. A few facts leading up...
The Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Bharat Thread Mills (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR397
K.T. Desai, J.1. The petitioner carries on business of manufacturing and selling, amongst other things, yarn and thread. That petitioner is the proprietor of a registered trade mark known as the 'Sadhu' mark. The petitioner has been using wrappers and labels bearing a representation of that trade mark. The said trade mark has been registered in respect of yarn and thread, and has been used inter, alia in respect of two cord machine thread No. 40. The certificate of registration has been tendered and is marked as exh. B. The respondents, in the year 1955, started manufacturing and selling their two cord thread bearing No. 40 under a mark known as the 'Sanyasi' mark and are using labels bearing a representation of that mark. On May 5, 1955, the respondents got that mark registered as a design under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, in class 5. The certificate of registration of that design is exhibited in the case as exh. G. On May 10, 1955, the respondents applied for the regist...
Viswanath Tukaram Vs. General Manager, Central Railway and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom111; (1957)59BOMLR892; ILR1959Bom515; (1957)IILLJ250Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This special civil application has been referred to a Full Bench by Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Gokhale. No question has been formulated by the learned Judges, but it seems that they took the view that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anthony Almeda v. Taylor, : (1957)ILLJ452Bom (A), requires reconsideration inasmuch as a decision of the Supreme Court in D'Costa v Patel, : [1955]1SCR1353 , seems to the learned Judges inconsistent with the view taken of the law in Almeda's case (A).2. Now, curiously enough, the Advocate General emphatically asserts before us that not only the decision of the Supreme Court is not inconsistent with Almeda's case (A), but that the decision of the Supreme Court supports and reinforces the view taken by this Court in Almeda's case (A), and Mr. Singhvi not so emphatically also agrees that it is difficult to find any inconsistency between the judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgment in Almeda's case (A). But inasmuch...
Abdul Rahim Ismail C. Rahimtullah Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom115; (1957)59BOMLR857; ILR1958Bom205
Chainani, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Rule 6 (a) of the Indian Passport Rules for having entered India without a valid passport as required by Rule 3 of the Rules made under Section 3 of the Indian Passport Act. The learned Magistrate has found that the applicant is a citizen of India. This finding is not challenge ed in this revision application. The only point, which arises for decision and which has been argued before us, is whether the Passport Act and the Rules framed thereunder apply to the citizens of India. The preamble of the Act is as follows :'Whereas it is expedient to take power to require passports of persons entering India;.....'The word 'passport' is defined in Section 2 as meaning a passport for the time being in force issued or renewed by the prescribed authority, and satisfying the conditions prescribed relating to the class of passports to which it belongs. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to make rules requiring that the persons entering I...
Dalichand V. Parekh Vs. Mathuradas Ravji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom428; (1957)59BOMLR1066; ILR1958Bom218
1. The only question arising in this appeal is whether the payment made by the respondent company by way of a set-off to one Sevarani, a partner of Roy and Co., against a debt due by the respondent firm to the said Roy and Co., is binding on Roy and Co. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the receiver of the said Hoy and Co., appointed by the Civil Court of Bantwa, for recovering the sum due from the defendant firm on taking accounts of the dealings between Roy and Co., and the defendant firm. Roy and Co., was a partnership firm constituted by a deed of partnership, Ex. 8/1 dated 5-10-48, having four partners Salarnatrai, Baleband, Sevaram and Variyaldas, each partner having an equal share. The said firm purchased chillies and other goods at Veraval through the commission agency of the defendant firm. Shortly after the constitution of Roy and Co., the partners fell out and on 6-1-49, Sevaram gave a notice to the remaining partners for a dissolution of the firm and f...
Janga Raoji Mali Vs. Nasarat Jahan Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This full bench calls at our hands a proper construction of Section 88(1A) of the Tenancy Act and its effect upon the provisions of Section 34. The facts briefly are that the landlady filed an application before the Mamlatdar for possession of certain lands on the ground that she bona fide required them for personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar allowed the application. The tenant went in appeal to the Prant Officer and the Prant Officer held that the landlady did not require the lands bona fide and also gave other findings in favour of the tenant, with which we are not concerned in this full bench. The landlady went in revision to the Revenue Tribunal, and the Revenue Tribunal accepting the findings of fact of the Prant Officer, as it was bound to do, remanded the matter to him to determine whether the case of the tenant fell under Section 88(1A), and this order of remand was challenged before Mr. Justice Tendolkar and Mr. Justice Kotval on the ground that in view of ...
The State Vs. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom68; (1957)59BOMLR901; 1958CriLJ161; ILR1957Bom880
Chagla, C.J.1. This Full Bench was constituted to consider the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, which is Act 25 o 1946 and the question arises in the following circumstances. The accused in this case was married in Bombay in 1948. On 16th of May, 1955 he married a second wife at Bikaner. On 5th July 1955 his first wife lodged a complaint with the First Class Judicial Magistrate at Sholapur. The learned Magistrate held that inasmuch as the prosecution was launched after the Act 25 of 1946 was repealed by the Central Act 25 of 1955 which came into force on 18th May 1955, the accused was entitled to an order of acquittal. Against the order of acquittal, the State of Bombay came in appeal in this Court and the matter came before Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Palnitkar and these learned Judges felt considerable doubt as to whether Radhabai Mohandas v. Bombay State 57 Bom LR 827 : AIR 1953 Bom 439, had been correctly decided...
Bhikamdas Balaram and ors. Vs. Motilal Gambhirmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom307; (1957)59BOMLR1150; ILR1958Bom198
ORDER1. This is a revisional application filed by the Petitioners who were originally defendants Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and it raises a question of court-fees. The plaintiff-opponent has filed a suit, being suit No. 6 of 1955, against the petitioners for dissolution and accounts of an alleged partnership between himself and the first petitioner. The plaintiff has also asked for a declaration that the transactions entered into by the first petitioner with the other petitioner were not binding upon him and did not in any way affect his rights to the suit properties and prayed that the accounts of the alleged partnership be taken after taking this fact into consideration. He has also prayed for partition of the partnership properties and possession thereof from the petitioners and for the amount found due upon taking accounts from the first petitioner. There is also a prayer for the appointment of a receiver or commissioner for the custody of properties and for taking accounts.2. The suit was orig...
Sitabai Ramchandra Todankar Vs. Ramchandra Raghunath Todankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom116; (1957)59BOMLR885; ILR1958Bom190
Chagla, C.J. 1. This Full Bench has to consider a rather important question as to the right of a Hindu to obtain divorce on the ground of desertion, which right was given to him under the Born-bay Hindu Divorce Act of 1947 and which was taken away by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.2. The facts which give rise to the Full Bench are briefly these. The respondent, who is the husband, filed a petition for judicial separation before the City Civil Court on the ground that his wife, the appellant, had deserted him for a continuous period of four years from 22nd December 1950. An application for amendment of this petition was made and the amendment effected was that the petitioner sued for divorce on the ground of desertion under the Bombay Act. The learned City Civil Court Judge took the view that in view of this amendment the Court had no jurisdiction. The plaint was then presented before Mr. Justice Coyajee and the question raised before him was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to t...
Umedsingh Hamirasingh and ors. Vs. the Marsden Mills, Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom143; (1957)59BOMLR985; (1957)IILLJ658Bom; (1959)IILLJ658Bom
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a group of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian in respect of judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The facts in all these petitions and the question of law to be decided being identical, the matters were dealt with at all stages by a single judgment, and, therefore, it would be convenient to dispose of these petitions also by a single judgment. But we will take the facts in Special Civil Application No. 3179 of 1956 as typical of the facts which exist in the other applications.2. The petitioners are employed in a canteen run by a co-operative society of the workers of the Marsden Mills, Ltd., who are the first Respondents. In 1948, an award was made by the Industrial Court regarding the standardisation of wages of all employees employed in the textile industry at Ahmedabad. Subsequently there was a supplementary award regarding dearness allowance. The said award directed the textile mills to pay dearness allowance to contract labour on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »