Mumbai Court April 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.
Mumbai Mhijibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Trikamlal Laxmidas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1092
ORDER(1) This revision petition raises an interesting point of law. The facts necessary to be stated in order to dispose of this point of law are as follows: One Fakirbhai Jijibhai was the owner of S. No.53. He mortgaged the same on 13-3-1924 to one Mahijibhai Patel for Rs.975/-. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagor Fakirbhai subsequently sold on 3-4-1926 his equity of redemption for Rs.1499/-, and the vendee was one Laxmidas. That Laxmidas was the father of opponent No.1. Out of the sum of Rs.1499/-, a sum of Rs.524/- was paid to the mortgagor Fakirbhai a8nd the balance of Rs.975/- was retained by the purchaser for payments to the mortgagee Mahijibhai patel. That mortgagee was the father of the present petitioners. Subsquently, on 3---1926, the mortgagor Fakirbhai again pruported to sell the same equity of redemption for a sum of Rs.1300/- and the vendee was the mortgagee Mahijigbhai himself. In 1947, Laxmidas, father of opponent No.1, filed an application under Sec...
S.B. Bhatt (Secretary, Ahmedabad Mill Mazdoor Mandal) Vs. District Jud ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ300Bom
Tarkunde, J. 1. These two petitions have been filed by the Secretary of the Ahmedabad Mill Majdoor Mandal on behalf of three workers, Punamchand, Vishnuprasad and Samaldas, who are employees of opponent 2. The employees are doing the work of cut-lookers. By an award given on 21 April 1948 by the industrial court in Reference No. 18 of 1947, it was provided that 'if there are persons (in Ahmedabad) who are doing cut-looking as well as folding, they should be paid the rate earned by the Cut-lookers in Bombay.' Subsequent to the publication of this award, there was a registered agreement, dated 22 June 1949, between Ahmedabad Millowners' Association on behalf of its local member mills and the Textile Labour Association, the representative union, relating to the salary, grades, promotions and other matters of clerks employed in the textile mills in Ahmedabad. The petitioner claims that the employees represented by him in these proceedings are covered by Clause (5) of that agreement and are...
State Vs. Sharifbhai Jamalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom192; (1958)60BOMLR1186; 1959CriLJ577; ILR1958Bom1422
Vyas, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Baroda and it raises a question whether clause 3, schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution. The reference arises in this way. In the case of State v. Sharifbhai Jamalbhai, which is pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, First Court, Baroda, the accuses Sharifbhai Jamalbhai is being prosecuted for an infringement of the provisions of clause 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, which infringement is made punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Sharifbhai was born in Baroda on 7th December 1933. He has produced a birth certificate in support of that fact. He was living in Baroda till the year 1951. He has produced two ration cards Exhs. 8 and 7 to show that he was drawing ration for himself and his people in the years 1949 and 1951 in Baroda. He has also produced Exh. 6, a muster roll of the Yamuna Mills Baroda to show that till December...
D.K. Merchant Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom199; (1958)60BOMLR1183; 1959CriLJ579; ILR1958Bom1224
Vyas, J. 1. This revisional application which is filed by D. K. Merchant, the accused in Criminal case No. 101 of 1956 which heard and decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Railways), Poona, raises an interesting point of law under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.2. The accused was convicted by the learned Magistrate on an offence under Section 65(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and he was sentenced to suffer six months; rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer three months' further rigorous imprisonment. On an appeal by the accused to the Court of Session at Poona, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed upon the accused and he dismissed the appeal of the accused. It is from this order of dismissal of his appeal by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, that the accused has come in revision to this Court.3. Now, the facts which gave rise to the p...
K.M. Motwani Vs. Albert Sequeira and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1282
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the decision of the learned City Civil Court Judge Mr. Divan dismissing the plaintiff's suit which was filed under S. 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act.(2) The undisputed facts are that the second respondent is the landlord and he let out the premises in suit prior to December 1947 to one Robert Nicolas. Robert Nicolas sublet the premises to the first respondent on 1-12-1947 and the first respondent gave leave and license to occupy these premises to the appellant in October 1948. As Nicolas did not pay rent to the landlord, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment and in February 1950 he obtained a decree. When he sought to execute the decree, the appellant obstructed and in these obstruction proceedings on 13-9-1950 an agreement was arrived at between the appellant and the second respondent by which the second respondent recognised the appellant as his tenant. The first respondent filed an application in the Small Causes Court under S....
Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan Vs. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR531
B.P. Sinha J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated November 30, 1951, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reversing those of the District Judge at Miraj, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit properties in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1940. Civil Appeal No. 287 of 1955 is on behalf of the added respondent No. 7, and the Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1955 is on behalf of the added respondent No. 6-the State of Bombay which now represents the original defendant No. 1 the Miraj State (now merged in the State of Bombay).2. In the view we have taken, as will presently appear, on the question of limitation, it is not necessary to state in any detail the pleadings of the parties or the merits of the decisions of the Courts below. For the purposes of these appeals, it is only necessary to state that the plaintiff-respondent, who was the appellant in the High Court, had instituted a suit on Ja...
Kanakmal Lalchand Munot Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1506
Miabhoy, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the Bombay Provincial Muinicipal Corporations Act, 1949, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The conviction is based on the finding that the petitioner committed a breach of Section 313, Clause (i), of the aforesaid Act. The facts which arc not in dispute are as follows: The petitioner, before March 30, T956, was conducting a printing press in the name and style of 'Prakash Printing Press' in house No. 1461-62, Raviwar Peth, Poona City, since the year 1934. On March 30, 1956, there was a big fire in that locality and many houses, shops and other establishments, situated in that locality including the printing press of the petitioner, wore completely destroyed. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, is that, in the aforesaid fire, the building in which the press was housed fell down completely and that the machinery was completely destroyed, except two treadle machines which es...
Dhanraj Mills Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Cotton Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1295
Chagila, C.J. (1) A very interesting question relating to the law of limitation arises on his appeal and the question becomes more interesting because it has not been decided definitely by any High Court whose decisions have been referred to at the bar and the question arises in this way. The respondents entered into a contract with the appellant-mills on the 5th of December, 1950. The contract was headed 'Provisional Sale Note' and under this contract the respondents agreed to buy from the appellants certain bales of cotton goods for February-March delivery against confirmed quota to be confirmed within 30 days, U. K. Mill delivery. On the next day, the respondents paid to the appellants a sum of Rs. 3,500 and the appellants passed a receipt in respect of this amunt stating that the amount was payment against fulfilling the contract. It appears that the respondents could not obtain the necessary quota for exporting the goods to the United Kingdom for which the goods were intended, and...
Bhika Ragho MaraThe Vs. Ratanchand Reochand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1088
Miabhoy, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question involving the interpretation of Section 25, Clause (i), of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act.2. The facts are as follows : The petitioners executed a sale-deed, dated January 17, 1936, conveying certain fields for a sum of Bs. 2,500 in favour of the opponent. The petitioners continued to be in possession of the conveyed fields. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the nature of the transaction, and that dispute was referred by them to the decision of an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award on December 18, 1940. The award stated that the transaction dated January 17, 1936, was a sale out and out. The award further stated that the petitioners were to remain in possession of the conveyed fields and were to pay Rs. 2,500 in 10 instalments of Rs. 250 per annum and, after the whole of the amount of Rs. 2,500 was paid, the opponent was to execute a sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners...
Suleman Hasham Memon Vs. Kashiram Bhau Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1119
Chainani, J.1. Opponent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the opponent) made an application to the Collector under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In his application he stated that he was the protected tenant of the land, that the petitioner had no concern with it and that he had un-authorisedly occupied a portion of the land. The petitioner denied that he was in wrongful possession of the disputed portion pf the land. He contended that the land had been in the possession of his family for the last 50 years. The Prant Officer accepted the petitioner's contention that he had been in possession of a portion of the disputed land. Regarding the remaining portion of the land in dispute, the Prant Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of it prior to six months from the date on which the opponent had made his application. He, therefore, passed an order directing the summary eviction of the petitioner from this portion of the land...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »