Mumbai Court February 1958 Judgments
Kamala Vs. Shama Rupchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom466; (1958)60BOMLR633; ILR1958Bom949
1. The appellant is the wife of respondent No. 1. They were married on 18-5-1955. In April 1956 respondent. No. 1 filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No. 25 of 1955), praying that his marriage with the appellant should be declared null and void. During the pendency of this petition, the appellant made an application under Section 24 of the Act, in which she asked for an order directing respondent No. 1 to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month and the expenses of the proceedings. This application was opposed by respondent No. 1. It was urged on his behalf that an order under this section can only be made in favour of the petitioner, that is, the party, who had filed the main petition before the Court. This argument urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 was found favour with the learned trial Judge, who accordingly dismissed the application made by the appellant for obtaining interim relief. Against that order, the present appeal has been filed...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Tiwari Vs. Bhimraj Harlalka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom357; (1958)60BOMLR963; ILR1958Bom1344
Chagla, C.J.1. An interesting point under the Insolvency law arises in this appeal. A summary suit was filed by the Respondents against M. and T. Films Ltd. and the appellant, who is the Managing Director of that company. The suit was on a promissory note dated the 5th of June 1952 for Rs. 63,358-5-9. Leave to defend was given to the Defendants, and the litigation went through certain vicissitudes which we need not deal with, and ultimately Mr. Justice Coyajee passed a decree for the amount claimed against both the Defendants. It may be stated in passing that although the appellant made an attempt to get the hearing of the suit adjourned on the ground of his illness the adjournment was refused, and the learned Judge passed the decree on merits. It may also be mentioned that the appellant actual cross-examined the witness of the Plaintiff, although he did not give any evidence himself. The judgment was passed on 22-7-1957. An insolvency notice based upon that judgment was taken out by t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. M.C. Menon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR75
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee by which he held that the Accommodation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the requisition order which was impugned by the petitioner. It is sufficient to state a very few facts in order to decide the two contentions that arise in this appeal.2. One Nair was a monthly tenant of the premises, which is a flat on the first floor of a building at Hormusji Adenwalla Road, Matunga, and it appears that in January 1949 this Nair started a commercial institution in one of the rooms of this flat. On September 22, 1955, Nair assigned this business to the petitioner, and the deed of assignment mentions Rs. 601 as consideration paid by Menon, Rs. 400 being the price of furniture and Rs. 201 being the price for the goodwill of the business. The order of requisition was passed on April 22, 1957, and it recites that on an enquiry, it was found that the premises had become vacant in the month of September 1955 and the order o...
Tag this Judgment!State and anr. Vs. Shantilal R. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom510; (1958)60BOMLR807; 1958CriLJ1467; ILR1958Bom944
Tarkunde, J.1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The respondent is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He was authorised by his licence to supply electricity in a part of the town of Billi-mora. He had laid supply lines along various roads in the town, including the Mahatma Gandhi Road, the Station Road and the Manekbai Tata Road. It appears that towards the end of 1955 he converted his supply from D.C. to A.C. current. On account of this alteration he was required to set up a larger number of electric poles to support the aerial wires. The work of setting up additional poles was carried out by him on or about 7-12-1955. Before carrying out this work, the licensee failed to give any notice to the Billimora Municipality. The Municipality claimed that it was obligatory on the licensee under Section 13(1) of the Indian Electricity Act to give a notice of the intended works to the Municipality. For his failure to do so the respondent was prosecuted under Section 47 ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakishan Brijlal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom102; (1958)60BOMLR748
ORDER1. This is a petition wherein the petitioner challenges two prohibitory orders, copies whereof are annexed as Exd. A and B to the petition, passed by the 2nd respondent, the Additional Collector of Bombay, on the ground that they are illegal and prays that a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction, order or writ be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the 2nd respondent to withdraw or cancel the said orders and to prohibit him from proceeding further, thereunder or from taking any steps for recovering the sum of Rs. 2,84,042-10-6, being the arreas of income-tax.2. The facts leading to the present petition may shortly be stated. At all material times the firm of Bilasrai Banarasilal and Co. were the Managing Agents of the Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. The ostensible partners in Messrs. Bilasrai Banarasilal and Co. were one Bilasari Joharmal and Banarasilal Meghraj. It is not in dispute and in fact it is admitted, that Bilasrai was the nominee of the 4th resp...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. P.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom182; (1958)60BOMLR873; 1956CriLJ567
K.T. Desai, J. 1. The respondent in this case is a Barrister of England and an Advocate of this Court. He was appointed to officiate as third Assistant to the Court Receiver and Liquidator in August 1949. His work was not found to be satisfactory. On 30-1-1954, Dr. Banaji, the Court Receiver and Liquidator, made a report to the Honourable the Chief Justice against the conduct of the respondent in connection with a tool box containing a complete kit for repairing air conditioning machines etc. This box belonged to a firm which the Court Receiver sold as a going concern in 1951. The box was found laying in the respondent's room till as late as 1954. The report was considered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Coyajee as the Administrative Judge and by the Honourable the Chief Justice. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice disapproved of the conduct of the respondent and severely warned him to be more careful about his work in future. His Lordship directed the Court Receiver and Liquidator to submit a...
Tag this Judgment!Dadajee Dhackjee and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. their Workmen (Clerical St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ121Bom
ORDER1. In this reference Sri Sachindranath who has appeared for the union has objected to the appearance of Sri A. T. Joshi for the company and has requested that if his objection is overruled, a formal order be passed so that he (Sri Sachindranath) may, if so advised, challenge the order in a higher Court. At the outset Sri Sachindranath objected on the ground that Sri Joshi was a legal practitioner, but when Sri Joshi stated that he had got his sanad cancelled sometime in 1956, Sri Sachindranath stated that he wanted to objection on other grounds. 2. Sri Joshi has produced a letter of authority from the company in which it is stated : 'Be pleased to note that we have appointed Sri A. T. Joshi, our labour adviser, to appear on our behalf and represent us in the above matter.' 3. Sri Sachindranath has urged that Sri Joshi is not an officer of an association of employers and so he is not entitled to appear under S. 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further argued that Sri Jo...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshir Sorabji Mirza Vs. U.M. Bhatt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR803
Dixit, J.1. A rather interesting question has been raised, on the petition, under Section 7-C of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, and the question arises in this way. There is a village Panchayat at the village of Udwada, constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panehayats Act, 1933. The village of Udwada is composed of four wards and it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a voter in ward No. 3. On November 21, 1956, the petitioner, filed a nomination paper, asking that he be elected from wards Nos. 3 and 4. His nomination paper was scrutinised and the nomination was accepted. On December 14, 1956, the election was held and two days later i.e. on December 16, 1956, the petitioner was declared elected from ward No. 4. Some nine months from the date when the petitioner was declared elected, a voter made an application on September 11, 1957, to obtain a declaration that the petitioner's election was invalid. This petition was heard by the Prant Officer, Bulsar P...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottamdas Talsibhai Patel Vs. Lilubhai Kishorebhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR800
J.C. Shah, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating tie facts and dealing with the evidence relating to corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant, proceeded.] Mr. Chari contended that, in any event, there has been a procedural irregularity in the trial before the Election Tribunal and that, on that account, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Our attention was invited to Sections 98, 99 and 100 of the Kepresentation of the People Act. Section 98 of the Representation of the People Act provides thatat the conclusion of the trial of an election petition the Tribunal shall make an order-(a) dismissing the election petition; or(b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void, or(c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected.Section 99(1) provides:At the time of making an order under Section 98 the Tribunal shall also make...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Cotton Export Import Co. Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mill Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom307; (1958)60BOMLR894; ILR1958Bom1351
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Bombay Cotton Import Export Company claiming to be a registered firm carrying on business as merchants and commission agents in Bombay challenging a decree dismissing their suit for a decree for Rs. 1,42,634-13-4 against the Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. The plaintiffs's suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the view that the plaintiffs not being a registered firm at the date when the suit was instituted, the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The plaintiffs carried on business in cotton in Karachi prior to the partition of India, The plaintiffs applied for registration under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, to the Registrar of Firms at Karachi for registration of their firm stating that they were carrying on business in Karachi and in Bombay. The plaintiffs were accordingly registered on 13-1-1947 as a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The plaintiffs filed this suit in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »