Mumbai Court November 1958 Judgments
Gangaram Icharam Vs. Bhikasing Nathusing and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR666
Shah, J.(1) The respondents filed Civil suit No. 169 of 1945 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusaval, claiming that a transaction effected by their father Nathusing on 30-4-1938 in favour of the petitioner, whereby lands S. Nos. 3/5A and 31/3/1 of the village Borkhede. Taluka Raver, were ostensibly sold, was in the nature of a mortgage and for accounts. The suit was transferred under section 19(b) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Actm 1939, to the Board established in that behalf, and it was numbered as application No. 4374 of 1945. It was heard by the Civil Judge on whom the powers of the Board were conferred by the B. A. D. R. Act, 1947 with other applications in which the respondents were concerned. The Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusaval by his order dated 28-6-1955 declared the impugned transaction to be in the nature of a mortgage, and directed the transferee Gangaram Ichharam to deliver possession of the lands to the respondents and to ...
Tag this Judgment!Rammayya Venkat Narsu Bura Vs. the State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR654
Acts/Rules/Orders: Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 - Sections 28, 28(1) and 12(2)Cases Referred: Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210, 1953 SCR 1144; Champaklal Parikh v. Mahendra Govindlal Choksi, Special Civil Appln. No. 1807 of 1955 Dated 7-12-1955 (Bom); Dattatraya Shinde v. S.V. Bhave, 60 Bom LR 210, ILR (1959) Bom 716FACTS(1) In the general election held in 1957, one Shrinivas 2nd respondent was elected a Councillor of the Municipality of Ahmednagar. Thereafter he was elected a member of the standing Committee and the Chairman of the Sanitary Committee. In a general meeting of the Councillors held after the election, certain members of the Municipality were also elected to represent the Municipality on the School Board constituted under the Bombay Primary Education Act of 1947. It was said that the 2nd respondent by reason of his being an influential member of the Municipality, was in a position to wield considerable influence in the selection of the membe...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. the Estate Investment Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR660
Shelat, J.1. This appeal raises two questions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They are, whether the State Government, where it has taken over management of lands belonging to a landholder under Chapter IV of the Act, is liable to render an account of its management during the pendency of the management, and secondly whether a suit filed by a landholder for accounts can be entertained by a civil Court.2. By an Indenture of grant and demise dated November 7, 1870, the Secretary of State in Council granted and demised certain lands, hereditaments and premises therein described to one Ramehandra Laxinanji of Bombay for a term of 999 years on certain terms and conditions therein contained. By diverse transfers made subsequently the plaintiff-company became the owner of part of these lands, situate at Bhayandar, Mira and Ghodbunder, aggregating in all to about 7000 acres. The plaintiff-company took over possession of these lands in 1949 and thereafter managed them ...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Staff Union and anr. Vs. the State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1347
ORDER(1) This is petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus ordering modification of an order of reference dated january 29, 1958 made under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to substitute the words 1st January 1954 and 1st February 1956 at appropriate portions in place of the words 1st Febuary 1957 contained in that order of reference. The relief clained as in prayer (b) is not pressed before me.(2) The short relevant facts as appearing in the petition are that in the 1st week of February 1957 the first petitioners who are a registered Union as representing the employees of the 2nd respondents out forward a demand for increase of dearness allowance with retrospective effect as from January 1st 1954. As there was taken before the conciliation Officer in conciliation proceedings. The conciliation Officer made a report under S. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the 1st petitioners thereafter requested the G...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinibai Manchershaw Mehanty and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1191
(1) This is a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a requistion Order date 4-7-1958, passed in pursuance of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of S. 6 of the Bombay Land Requistion Act of 1948.(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of Hera Building at Jehangir Daji Lane, Sleater Road, D. Ward, Bombay 7. Prior to 31-5-1957, one P. N. Mehta was occupying the first floor of that building as a tenant of the petitioner. By a notice to quit P. N. Mehta gave notice to the petitioner that he would vacate the first floor of the premises ont he expiry of the month of the tenancy, viz.. 31-5-1957. In fat on 5-6-1957, P. N. Mehta vacated the first floor fo the premises hereinafter referred to as the premises. By a letter dated 5-6-1957, the petitioners signed the printed prescribed the same to the Accomadition Officer. A copy of that form is annexed as Annexture to affidavit in reply dated 1-11-1958. This form reached the Accommodation Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Staff Union Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ729Bom
1. This is a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus ordering modification of an order of reference dated 29 January, 1958, made under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so as to substitute the words '1 January, 1954' and '1 February, 1956' at appropriate positions in place of the words '1 February, 1957' contained in that order of reference. The relief claimed as in prayer (b) is not pressed before me. 2. The short relevant facts as appearing in the petition are that in the first week of February 1957, petitioners 1 (who are a registered union) as representing the employees of respondent 2 put forward a demand for in-increase of dearness allowance with retrospective effect as from 1 January, 1954. As there was no settlement between the parties, the matter was taken before the conciliation offer in conciliation proceedings. The conciliation offer made a report under S. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and petit...
Tag this Judgment!The Petlad Town Municipality Vs. the Petlad Keshav Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR795
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Nadiad, decreeing against the Petlad Town Municipality, a municipality governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1901, a sum of Rs. 13,397-9-9 and proportionate costs of the suit and future interest from the date of the suit till satisfaction.2. The facts which give rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The town of Petlad was originally within the jurisdiction of the former Baroda State. The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. is a limited liability company which was registered under the Companies Act of the Baroda State, and owns a factory in the town of Petlad for manufacture of cotton textile and yarn. For its manufacturing business the company had to import machinery, raw materials and other goods from outside the limits of the municipality, and had to export the manufactured goods. The company applied to the former Baroda State Government for remission in the matter of levy of taxes su...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Ramchandra Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom515; (1959)61BOMLR498; 1959CriLJ1415; ILR1959Bom1145
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, Mazagaon, under Section 142 of Act XXII of 1951 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. It is common ground that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 380 and 114, Indian Penal Code, by the Presidency Magistrate, 13th Court, Bombay, on 16-11-1949 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On 15-10-1957 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Greater Bombay, made an order under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, externing the petitioner. At that time the petitioner was facing a prosecution under Section 411. Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The externment order was, therefore, not executed on the petitioner and he was allowed to stay on within the limits of Greater Bombay. On 10-7-1958 the Criminal Case came to an end and the petitioner was acquitted. Immediately there...
Tag this Judgment!Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd. Vs. their Wo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1958
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ124Bom
1. This is a reference by the Government of Bombay under S. 12(5) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication of a dispute between the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of india (Private), Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen (including clerical staff), employed by it in Greater Bombay, i.e., in the factory at the head office and the Bombay district office of the company over the following demand :- 'Bonus for the year ending 31 October 1957. - All employees including temporary workmen and casual labour should be paid unconditional bonus, equivalent to three fourths of their total earnings during the financial year ending 31 October, 1957. All employees including temporary workmen and casual labour, discharged, dismissed, retired or retrenched during the said financial year or after, should be entitled to this bonus. The earnings for this purpose should include overtime and dearness allowance, comptists' machine allowance and officiating allowance.' 2. In the statement of claim fil...
Tag this Judgment!Mandalsa Kumari Devi and ors. Vs. M. RamnaraIn Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom529; (1959)61BOMLR651; ILR1959Bom1468
S.T. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Shelat on a chamber summons under Order XXI, Rule 50(2) and the order appealed against is one granting leave to the decreeholder to proceed in execution against certain persons as partners in the firm of Messrs. Jagatsons International Corporation. In that firm there were several partners including the Maharaja of Sirmoor, a principality in Himachal Pradesh. There is no dispute that the Government of India had recognised the Maharaja of Sirmoor as a ruler entitled to the privileges under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs, who are respondent No. 1 before us, filed a suit against that firm to recover a sum of Rs. 1,96,831.58 nP. The suit was filed a summary suit and the plaintiffs took out a summons for judgment. The writ of the summons was served only upon the Manager of the firm and upon one of the partners, Shib Chunder Kumar, who is respondent No. 5 to the appeal. At the hearing of the summons for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »