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.
Chiranjilal Ramachandra Loyalka and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom396; (1958)60BOMLR1273; ILR1959Bom140
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises a rather important question as to the applicability of the principle of res judicata. The trial Court held that the suit which it was considering was bared by res judicata and dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs have come on this appeal.2. The suit that was held to be bared was a suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the plaintiffs represented the Hindu community of Bombay. The suit was for a declaration that the members of the Hindu Community had acquired vested rights to use the Mumbadevi Tank for having p purificatory baths and to use the embankments thereof for performing religious, obsequial and other ceremonies. The suit was filed against the defendants who were the purchasers form the defendants in the earlier suit, being suit No. 438 of 1934. That suit was filed by the plaintiffs as relators under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and in that suit the plaintiffs alleged that there was a dedication by one Putli...
State of Bombay Vs. Giridharilal Shankerlal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1137; (1958)IILLJ700Bom
J.C. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against the decree passed by the Assistant Judge, Baroda, in Appeal No. 120 of 1954. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this appeal, is a graduate in medicine and surgery of the appeal, is a graduate in medicine and surgery of the Bombay University. After graduation the plaintiff joined the former Baroda Government in Medical Department on 14 October 1941, and he was a permanent employee of the State till the date of its merger, 1 August 1949, with the State of Bombay. Before the merger of the State there was an agreement between His Highness the Maharaja of Baroda and the Government of the Union of India that the services of the Baroda State servants were either to be contained on the same conditions as those prevailing in the State or that the servants were to be given reasonable compensation for termination of employment. Pursuant to this agreement, the Government of Bombay issued on 18 July 1949 a Resolution No. 2735/46 ...
Bahena Champat Vs. Karnu Sambha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1169
Datar, J.1. Survey No. 6 of mouza Wanjri, tahsil Wani, district Yeotmal, is sub-divided into several pot hissas. Survey No. 6/2 belonged to one Ramchandra; survey No. 6/3 belonged to one Udhao and Nana; and survey No. 6/4 belonged to Bahena, the present plaintiff. Ramchandra, the occupant of survey No. 6/2 sold his holding (No. 6/2) to the present defendants on March 15, 1950. Thereafter, Nana, one of the co-owners of survey No. 6/3, filed Civil Suit No. 88-A of 1950 for pre-empting survey No. 6/2 which had been sold by Ramchandra to the defendants, on the ground that the defendants were strangers and, therefore, Nana had a right to pre-empt the said holding survey No. 6/2. On March 9, 1951, a consent decree was passed in the aforesaid suit giving in effect Nana the right of pre-emption. In the meanwhile, that is to say, on March 29, 1950, Udhao and Nana together sold their holding survey No. 6/3 to the present defendants. The plaintiff, the owner of survey No. 6/4, has filed the prese...
Ramchandra Vs. Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom49; (1958)60BOMLR1164; ILR1959Bom134
K.G. Datar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhutt delivered in School Appeal No. 91 of 1948. A few facts may be stated before we consider the points that have been raised by Mr. Mudholkar on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. 2. Survey No. 21 of mouza Anjangaon Bari, tahsil and district Amravati, originally belonged to one Kisan. He sold the land to the plaintiff who is the present appellant, on 5-6-1926. Kisan's son Shrawan aggrieved by the transfer effected by his father filed civil suit No. 73 of 1928 in forma pauperis for avoiding the transfer and for possession of the land Shrawan obtained a decree in the suit on 30-11-1929. It appears that there was an appeal preferred by the present plaintiff against the decree in favour of Shrawan. That appeal came to be dismissed on 9-4-1931. It may be noted that the trial Court, when it passed a decree for possession in favour of Sharwan, also passed the necessary order fo...
Bharat Manilal Dalal Vs. the State of Bomaby
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR81
K.T. Desai J.1. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of a room in a building known as New Blocks situate at 175, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay. Prior to the year 1942 one Chandravadan C. Mehta was the tenant of the said premises. The petitioner alleges that he used to reside with the said Chandravadan C. Mehta in the said premises from the year 1941, that the said Mehta left the premises permanently in or about the middle of 1942, that the petitioner thereafter remained in possession of the said premises and was regularly paying rent in respect of the said premises to the landlord, that rent receipts in respect of the said premises were issued in the name of the said Mehta upto the end of the year 1955, that thereafter they were issued in the name of the petitioner and that he was the tenant lawfully entitled to occupy the said premises. In or about the end of March 1956 the petitioner came across a notice issued by the Inspector of Requisitioning calling upon the occupants of the said premi...
Nani Bai Vs. Gita Bai Rama Gunge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR523
Sinha, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal by leave granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, from the decision of that Court, dated October 9, 1950, in two cross-appeals from the decision of the Special Judge of the Special Tribunal Court at Mangalvedhe, dated July 31, 1946, in Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938. Of the two cross-appeals, the First Appeal No. 361 of 1948, by the appellants, was dismissed, and the First Appeal No. 363 of 1948, by the plaintiff, was allowed. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted another suit, being Suit, No. 1894 of 1937, which was also tried along with Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938. The former suit stands dismissed as a result of the judgment of the High Court, and no appeal has been brought against that judgment to this Court.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises (Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938), was instituted under the provisions of the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act, granting certain reliefs from indebtedness to agriculturists ...
Devjibhai M. Chokshi Vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ126Bom
ORDER1. This appeal against an order of the Judge, First Labour Court. Ahmedabad, arises out of the following facts. The appellants made an application to the labour court in which he stated that he was a permanent employee of the respondent mills company, working as a clerk in the sales department (retail shop) for two years. He was discharged from 13 November 1955, on the ground that his services as a temporary clerk in one of the retail shops of the mill were no longer required. Sometime in December 1955, he was taken back in service in one of the retail shops in a temporary post. The appellant contended that he was not a temporary clerk nor the juniormost, and he prayed for an order setting aside his discharge from 13 November 1955, as improper, and for being reinstated to his former permanent post. 2. The company by its written statement replied that the appellant was working as a temporary clerk in the retail shop run by the company. The provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relati...
Bombay Business House Vs. S. Venkatesan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1058
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Section T. Desai by which he dismissed a petition filed challenging an order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs confiscating certain goods imported by the petitioners as having been imported contrary to law and, therefore, liable to be confiscated. The narrow question that we have to consider in this appeal is whether the decision of the Customs Authority that the goods imported by the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of the import license issued to them is a decision which can be challenged by a petition, and if it can be challenged, whether a successful challenge has been made.2. Now, the facts briefly are that the import license was issued to the petitioners on July 18, 1955, and the license was for importing motor vehicle parts, and the description of these parts allowed to be imported had to be gathered from the serial numbers mentioned in the Import Trade Control Policy Book, the serial numbers b...
Jugal Kishore Jodhalal Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom81; (1958)60BOMLR1075; ILR1959Bom123
Y.S. Tambe, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Lal Jugalkishore seeks to get quashed the order of the first respondent, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, dated 8-8-1957, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, the second respondent, dated 5-1-1957. He further prays that the respondents be directed to put him in possession of the fields in question.2. This case has a very chequered history. The petitioner is a landlord of certain fields. He had given them on lease to the third respondent Ratanlal. The lease was to expire on 1-3-1952. Ratanlal, Thus being a lessee of the fields in the Agricultural was 1951-52, was entitled to claim the status of a protected lessee, under Section 3 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 31-3-1952 Ratanlal made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, praying that he be declared a protected lessee and for determinatio...
Jadev Mavji and ors. Vs. Maharana Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ130Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 7, 8, 10(1), 15, 17, 17A, 17A(3), 18, 20, 20(3), 33 and 33AAWARD1. These are all complaints under S. 33A of several workmen employed in Maharana Mills at Porbandar. The complainants in Miscellaneous Application No. 167 of 1956 were dismissed on 14 June 1956 for misconduct alleged to have been committed on the night of 6 June 1956. The complainants in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 165 and 166 of 1956 were dismissed of 15 June 1956 for misconduct alleged to have been committed on 11 June 1956. The complaints in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 170 of 1956 were dismissed on 16 June 1956 for misconduct alleged to have been committed on 11 June 1956. The complainants in Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 1956 were dismissed on 16 June 1956 for misconduct of resorting to go-slow tactics from 12 June 1956. It is stated in these complaints that the opponent company had contravened the provisions of S. 33, as during the pendency of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »