Mumbai Court January 1958 Judgments
Kamalakar Shankar Kate Vs. Principal, Training College for Men, Sangam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR624; (1958)IILLJ692Bom
Dixit, J.1. The petitioner in this case was in service of the Education Department of the Government of Bombay on or about 6 December 1948. According to the petitioner he was made permanent on the expiry of the probationary period. In about 1950 the petitioner was transferred as a clerk in the office of the Educational Inspector, Ahmednagar, where he served for about a year. The petitioner was then retransferred to Sangamner and at the latter place he worked in the office of the Principal, Training College for Men, for about three years. The petitioner was again transferred to the office of the Educational Inspector, Ahmednagar, and the petitioner's next assignment was that of a clerk in the Government Girls School, Ahmednagar, where the petitioner worked for about seven or eight months. In April 1956 the petitioner was again posted as a clerk in the office of the Principal, Training College for Men, at Sangamner. 2. It appears that while the petitioner was working at that place, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapatrao Shankarrao Indulkar and ors. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom263; (1958)60BOMLR888; ILR1959Bom67
Shah, J.1. Lands Section Nos. 15, 16, 17, 189, 190, 342, 268, 335, Pot. 2, and three houses at Vaghapur and lands Section Nos. 78 and 80 of the village of Vangutti, were originally regarded as Sheri Service lands of the Ghorpade family. On 20th November 1920, His Highness Shahu Chhatrapati Maharaja of Kolhapur, passed Huzur Tharav, No. 460, forfeiting the lands holding that the Ghorapades were unauthorizedly in occupation. By an order passed in the year 1924, Ex. 48, some of the forfeited lands and certain other lands situate at Hanimaal, Chikhalwal and Chinchwat were granted to the plaintiff's father Shankarrao Abajrao Indulkar in Inam for services rendered by him. Shankarrao Abajirao Indulkar-who will hereafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as Indulkar - continued in possession of the lands till the year 1942. His Highness Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaja died sometime in or about the year 1940, and his successor being a minor, a Regency Council was constituted to carry on the adm...
Tag this Judgment!Dadgonda Mahadgonda Patil Vs. Bhay Satyappa Gundaje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR594
Gokhale, J.1. In this Special Civil Application, Mr. Paranjpe has raised a short point about the competence of the Bombay Eevenue Tribunal to admit only in part a revision application preferred under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The petitioner is the owner of survey Nos. 78/1-2A, 78/2B, and 315/1 situated at Kupwad within the District of South Satara and he leased the said lands from the year 1947-48 to opponent No. 1. The tenant committed defaults in payment of rent for the years 1950-51 to 1954-55, and on June 17, 1955, the petitioner served a notice terminating his tenancy on account of defaults in payment of rent for the said five years. In pursuance of that notice the petitioner filed an application for possession under Section 29 of the Tenancy Act on December 25, 1955. That application was disposed of by the Mamlatdar of Miraj on October 15, 1956, The Mamlatdar held that though the tenant had committed defaults by reason of his failure to ma...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Waktu Karwadi Vs. Panjabrao Hukam Shambharkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom296; (1958)60BOMLR776; ILR1959Bom229
Y.S. Tambe, J. 1. This is an appeal by Narayan Kaktu Karwade under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. XLIII of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. There was an election held on 11-3-1957 in the Nagpur constituency of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. This constituency was a double seat constituency, out of which one seat was reserved for the scheduled castes and the other seat was a general seat. For the seat reserved for the scheduled castes the present appellant, Shrimati Anasuyabai Borkar, Shrimati Nagabai Vaidya, Shri Vinayakrao Changole and the first respondent were the duly nominated candidates. Before the due date, the appellant withdrew and the contest remained between the aforesaid remaining four candidates. As regards the general seat, the nominated candidates were the second respondent, Shri Wamanrao Gawande and Shri Mancharsha Awari. Both the respondents were candidates put up by Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti. The appellant was dummy cand...
Tag this Judgment!Manji Khimji Patel of Bhut, Kutch Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom236; (1959)61BOMLR132; ILR1958Bom1319
D.V. Vyas, J.1. These three Special Applications raise a common question and we propose to decide the question by a common judgment. The point which arises in these applications is whether the building materials in a building contract which are purchased by a building contractor from their parties and which are used by him in the construction of a building could be said to be sold by him to the owner of the building within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.2. The Petitioners entered into a contract for the construction of buildings. They supplied the entire material required for the construction of the buildings. It is contended on their behalf that the supply of the building materials by them, after purchasing the said materials from third parties, was not a sale of goods and, therefore, the State legislature had no jurisdiction to declare such transactions as sale of goods or make them taxable as sale of goods. It is contend...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Rekhchand Gopaldas Mohta Spn. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Laxman and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom255; (1958)60BOMLR619; ILR1958Bom1081
H.K. Chainani, J.1. The facts giving rise to this special civil application are that respondent No. 1 (whom I will hereafter refer to as the respondent, as he is the only contesting respondent in this case) was employed in the Mills of the petitioners. His services were terminated with, effect from 1st December 1953 on the ground that he had remained absent from duty without leave. The respondent then made an application to the District Industrial Court under Section 23 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (23 of 1947), read with Rule 36 of the rules made under this Act, in which he prayed that his discharge order should be declared illegal and that he should be reinstated by the petitioners. The District Industrial Court made an order for the reinstatement of the respondent. No order was, however, passed in regard to the payment of his back wages. Both the petitioners and 'the respondent appealed to the State Industrial Court. That Court agreed with the view ...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanabai Rama Naik and ors. Vs. Ganpat Jagannath Naik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom425; (1958)60BOMLR975; ILR1958Bom917
Chagla, C.J.1. A very short question as to limitation arises for our determination in this Full Ben h, and the question depends upon the proper construction to be given to Section 29(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.2. The facts briefly are that on 4-11-1954 the landlord made an application for possession of the lands held by his tenant on the ground that he had sub-let one of the lands contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The landlord contended that he was not aware of this sub-letting until November 1953. On the facts found it is clear that the sub-letting took place more than two years before 4-11-1954, and the question that arises is whether if the sub-letting took place more than two years before the date of the application. which is 4-11-1954, the application of the landlord to obtain possession is barred by limitation.3. Now, we have to consider a few sections of the Tenancy Act in order to decide this ques...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Rekchand Gopaldas Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills (Private) Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ180Bom
Chainani, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this special civil application are that respondent 1 (whom I will hereafter refer to as the respondent, as he is the only contesting respondent in this case) was employed in the mills of the petitioners. His services were terminated with effect from 1 December 1953, on the ground that he had remained absent from duty without leave. The respondent then made an application to the district industrial court under S. 23 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (XXIII OF 1947), read with rule 36 of the rules made under this Act, in which he prayed that his discharge order should be declared illegal and that he should be reinstated by the petitioners. The district industrial court made an order for the reinstatement of the respondent. No order was, however, passed in regard to the payment of his back wages. Both the petitioners and the respondent appealed to the State industrial court. That court agreed with the view ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and anr. Vs. Talab Haji HussaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom406; (1958)60BOMLR465; 1958CriLJ1308; ILR1958Bom1069
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The two petitions presented by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Preventive and Customs, Bombay raise questions of considerable importance. The first respondent along with others was charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act. He was released on hail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of like amount on 9-12-1957. On 4-1-1958 an application was made by the complainant, who is the petitioner before us, for cancellation of that bail and the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who was trying the case held that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against that order these two petitions have been preferred. The first is an application to the High Court to exercise its own power arid cancel the bail. The other is au application in revision against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate holding that he has no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Now, before we go into the merits and decide whether this is a fit case ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam HusseIn Kalumia Vs. Mahomed Umar Azizulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR972
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this Civil Revision application is with regard to the power possessed by the Court in relieving a tenant against forfeiture entailed by reason of his failure to pay rent in due time. It is not necessary to state all the facts. It would be sufficient to state that the landlord filed a suit against his tenant for eviction on two grounds: (1) that he needed the premises for his own bona fide requirements, and (2) that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The trial Court held against the landlord on the first ground. On the second ground it held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court and relieved the tenant against forfeiture.2. It is a well established principle of law that provisions with regard to relief against forfeiture must be liberally construed. Under English Law, relief is granted on principles of equity and the Equity Courts have alwa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »