Mumbai Court February 1958 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.
Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Shree Ram Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom309; (1958)60BOMLR898; ILR1958Bom1122
Shah, J.1. This appeal raises a dispute between two limited liability companies which have factories for manufacturing cotton textiles. The plaintiffs Shree Ram Mills Ltd. are a private limited company having their registered office in Bombay. The defendants are the Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd., having their registered office at Ahmedabad. 2. The plaintiff filed Jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 65 of 1951 in the Court of the Civil Judge, S.D., at Ahmedabad against the defendants, for a decree for Rs. 34,139 being the price of 50 bales of cotton with costs and interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum from the date of the suit. The plaintiff claimed that they had sold to the defendants 50 bales of Sudan Scarto cotton at the rate of Rs. 1,287 per candy of 784 Ibs. F.O.R., Ahmedabad, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover from the defendants Rs. 30,698/6/0 as price of cotton bales and Rs. 3,440-10-0 as interest thereon which the defendants had failed and neglected to pay and a...
Bai Amina Vs. Arab Abdul Habib Talab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom108; (1958)60BOMLR1206; ILR1958Bom1119
ORDER1. This is a revisional application by the original plaintiff Bai Amina alias Amnabu or Bhavanagar and it raises a short but interesting point of law under the Indian Stamp Act. The question is whether a certain deed of dower was sufficiently stamped or insufficiently stamped. The learned Judge has taken the view that the stamp was an insufficient stamp. This view is challenged by the learned advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing for the applicant in this application. Mr. Thakkar says that the document in question would fall within the exemption clause (a) mentioned under Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act.2. Now, Article 58 which is an article dealing with Settlement, says in clause A that an instrument of settlement including a deed of dower will be chargeable with stamp duty as on a Bond. Now the question of stamp on a bond, the required stamp would be of the value of Rs. 22-8-0. As a one rupee stamp was used for the deed in question, the deficiency would be of Rs. 21-8-0. The learned...
New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd., Bhavnagar Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR137; (1958)IILLJ573Bom
Vyas, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, made by the New Jehangir Vakil Mills, Ltd., Bhavnagar, and it arises out of an order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 1956. This petition raises an interesting question, and the question raised is the one of constructing S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This question has arisen in this way. Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 1956 was an application which was filed by certain three workers of the New Jehangir Vakil Mills, Ltd., Bhavnagar, under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The three workers complained under S. 33A of the Act that they were dismissed by notices served upon them on 17 April 1956, and the dismissal was ordered without the previous permission of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The complaint of the three workers was that at the date of their dismissal certain disputes in which the New Jehangir Vakil Mills, Ltd., and...
Vishnu Narayan Divan Vs. Govind Chudappa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom238; (1958)60BOMLR670; ILR1958Bom927
Dixit, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of two fields bearing Revision Survey Nos. 238 and 239 of the village Annur in the Kagal Taluka of the Kolhapur District. The first opponent is a tenant of these lands which were let out to him at an annual rent of Rs. 1,300. The case of the petitioner is that the first opponent committed default in the payment of the amount of rent for three years, i.e., 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. The landlord gave a notice to the first opponent terminating his tenancy and eventually filed Tenancy Suit No. 233 of 1955 to recover possession under Section 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In answer to the suit, the first opponent filed a written statement, in which he alleged that he had improved the land by constructing a well, that he was keeping with him cattle of the applicant for the purpose of grazing and that no receipt was given to him by the applicant for payment of the rent.2. The Mamlatdar of Kagal, wh...
Dossibai Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy Vs. P.M. Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1208
J.C. Shah, J.1. His Lordship, after setting out the facts, proceeded : The dispute about apportionment between the three claimants has now to be decided. The learned trial Judge held, that the first and the second claimants were entitled to share the amount of compensation and the third claimant was not entitled to share therein. We will presently deal with the method followed by the learned trial Judge and the principles enunciated by him for apportioning the amount of compensation. But before we deal with the question of apportionment it may be necessary to refer to certain preliminary contentions raised on behalf of the first claimant. The first claimant claimed the entire amount of compensation to the exclusion of claimant No. 2 and claimant No. 3. It was urged that the entire interest in the lands as a holder thereof was vested in the first claimant and even though the first claimant had entered into two agreements to lease out the land to the nominee of the second claimant, by th...
Ganpatlal Mulchandji Joshi Vs. First Civil Judge, Class I, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom262; (1958)60BOMLR621; ILR1959Bom367
ORDER1. The petitioner is the manager of a bidi factory at Gondia in the Bhandara district. Respondent No. 2, whom I will hereafter refer to as the respondent, was one of the workers employed in that factory. During the period of her employment, she gave birth to a child. Thereafter, she made an application to the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936) for an order directing the petitioner to pay maternity benefit to her as provided in the C.P. Maternity Benefit Act, 1930. The petitioner contended before the authority that the petitioner's factory was not a factory within the meaning, of the word 'factory' given in the Maternity Benefit Act, and that consequently, the respondent was not entitled to any benefit under tins Act. Another objection raised by the petitioner was that the amount claimed by the respondent was not 'wages' within the definition of this term given in the Payment of Wages Act. These contentions were not accepted and an order was made...
Ganpatlal Mulchandji Joshi Vs. Payment of Wages Authority (Civil Judge ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ178Bom
Chainani, J 1. The petitioner is the manager of a bidi factory at Gondia in the Bhandara district. Respondent 2, whom I will here-after refer to as the respondent, was one of the workers employed in that factory. During the period of her employment she gave birth to a child. Thereafter, she made an application to the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936), for an order directing the petitioner to pay maternity benefit to her as provided in the Central Provinces Maternity Benefit Act, 1930. The petitioner contended before the authority that the petitioner's factory was not a factory within the meaning of the word 'factory' given in the Maternity Benefit Act, and that consequently, the respondent was not entitled to any benefit under this Act. Another objection raised by the petitioner was that the amount claimed by the respondent was not 'wages' within the definition of this term given in the Payment of Wages Act. These contentions were not accepted and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›