Mumbai Court June 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.
The Uran Islampur Municipality Vs. Shankarrao Amritrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR284
Vyas, J.(1) These revisional applications raise a common question of law and therefore we have decided to dispose of them by a common judgment. The point of law which is raised in all these applications is this: If a person, who brings or introduces an article, on which octori is payable, into the octroi limits of a municipal district, refuses to pay the octroi leviable upon the article, is a suit tenable against him under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 (Bom. Act III of 1901)? There has been no decision of this High court, and we have not been referred to anydecision of any other High Court, upon this point. It is for this reason that these revisional applications raise a point of some importance.(2) For thepurpose of delivering judgment, it will be convenient to set out the facts which have given rise to Civil Revisional Application No. 1454 of 1956. This revisional application has arisen out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Isla...
Parshuram Pottery Works, Dhrangadhra Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ523Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928 - Section 4AWARD1. The following dispute is referred for a adjudication to this tribunal :- (1) The following workers should be paid Rs. 48-6-0 as monthly salary from February 1955 without prejudice to the grades already demanded for them : (1) Sri Videshi Hublal. (2) Sri Karim Kalu. (3) Abdul Karim Pirmohmed. (4) Sri Hetumiya Gulofmiya. (2) Workers Sri Hari Mitha should be paid wages of Rs. 2-15-3 per day from the date from when he is giving production equivalent to that of those of other workers of his own category. (3) Workers working in the packing department should be paid back one anna wage cut per day from their wages since it is implemented. (4) The contract of loading and unloading should be stopped and the workers employed for the purpose by the contractor should be considered to be the factory workers for all the purposes in all respects from 1 January 1956. (5) The names, number...
Manabai Hari Bobde Vs. Ramchandra Dama Bobde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1431
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will also govern Special Civil Application No. 36 of 1958.2. A common point of law arises in both these petitions and that is whether the word 'transfer' as used in Sub-section (9) of Section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, includes 'partition'. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 provides that a landholder can terminate the lease of a protected lessee by giving him a notice in writing and by following the procedure laid down in Section 8 of the Act.3. In Special Civil Application No. 24 of 1958, the petitioners who are mother and son effected a partition of Section No. 2/4 of mauza Kalamna, district Yeotmal. Petitioner No. 1 wanted to cultivate the land herself and, therefore, a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was served by her on respondent No. 1 terminating his lease. Respondent No. 1 thereupon made an application under Section 9(3) challenging the ~bona fides of the notice. His application was dismissed. The Bombay Revenue Tri...
Kishandas Bakhatmal Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Aheme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1357
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. The plaintiff was a sub-tenant of one Hassanali Gulamali who was joined as a party defendant to the suit. The tenant, defendant No. 2, died on July 6, 1955, and an application to bring his heirs on record was made on October 5, 1955. The application, as is obvious, was beyond time, having been filed 91 days after the death of defendant No. 2. The application was, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiff then made another application on January 13, 1956, for condonation of delay of one day. That application was also dismissed. The plaintiff then went in appeal and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal.2. It is perfectly true that, as the record stands, the petitioner has no case. He files an application, for bringing the heirs of defendant No. 2 on record when that application is out of time and when the suit has already abated. The proper application should have been for sett...
Sudama Chamaroo Vs. Kapoor Silk Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ369Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33, 33(2) and 33AAWARD1. This is a complaint by Sudama Chamaroo under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, complaining that the opponent company had dismissed him for alleged misconduct without paying wages for one month and without applying for the approval of the tribunal as required by the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The complainant is concerned in a dispute regarding bonus payable to the workmen which is the subject of the pending reference before this tribunal. His contention is that by virtue of the above proviso the company on dismissing him was bound to pay him one month's wages and apply for the approval of the tribunal and as it has done neither of these things the provisions of S. 33 had been contravened by it. The misconduct alleged against him is that he refused to repair a wooden drum in spite of the orders of the superior officer. It is not disputed that the...
Devidayal Nanakchand Vs. State Industrial Court Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom65; (1958)60BOMLR1253; ILR1959Bom419; (1961)ILLJ167Bom
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and is directed agaisnt the order of the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, which confirmed the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, refusing to order re-instatement of the petitioner.2. It is common ground that the petitioner was employed as a Fitter with R.S. Rekchand Mohota Mills, Hinganghat, and was removed from service a form 19-10-1954 after having been offered one month's salary in lieu of notice.3. The petitioner's contention before the two Tribunals below was and still is that the action taken against him was, in fact, one of dismissal and that as he was not given an opportunity to show cause against his dismissal that dismissal was erroneous. It is pointed out on his behalf that under Standing Order 25 in cases of this type opportunity has to be given to the employee before his dismissal from service.4. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 R.S. Rekchand Mohota Mills, it was contend...
Y.S. Parihar Vs. Chintaman Madhavsa Kha Tri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR403
Vyas, J.(1) These three revisional applications raise a common question of law, for the understanding of which it is necessary to state the facts of only one of the applicantions, namely, civil Revision Application No. 1400 of 2956. This application arised out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned joint Civil Judge, J. D., at Erandol, in Civil Suit No.42 of 1956. The plaintiff who is the opponent in this application filed this suit for recoveriung the amount of Rs. 100/- from the defendant Municipality of Dharangaon, the present applicant, upon the contention that the Municipality had recovered the said amount irom him illegally by way of octroi on yarn brought by him within the municipal limits during the period 25th March 1953 to 21st July 1955. The palintiff contended that the Municipality did not conform to the procedure required by law to be followed before the imposition of a tax. His case was that there was no sufficient publication of the rules and notice in the matter...
Maroti Lutabaji Vs. Member of State Industrial Court, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom61; (1958)60BOMLR1422; ILR1959Bom413
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who was employed as a bus conductor by the Provincial Transport Company, challenges the order of the State Industrial Court, dismissing his appeal form the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner which upheld his dismissal from service.2. The ground on which the petitioner requests this Court to quash the orders is that he was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers who boarded the bus belonging to the Provincial Transport Company, at Chargaon, though he was required by the Motor Vehicles Rules t issued such tickets to the passengers before the bus started on its journey. The facts are not in dispute. But what is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that he had actually received the fares from the passengers and that he was in the process of preparing their tickets when the Ticket Inspector who had entered the bus checked the tickets of the passengers and found that two of them ha...
Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industries Association, Nagpur Vs. the Regional ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom60; (1959)ILLJ368Bom
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writ restraining the respondent NO.1, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, from enforcing against the petitioner any of the provisions of the Employee's Provident Funds Act, 1952.2. The petitioner is the Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association and represents all the mine owners of Vidarbha. By Notification No. S.R.O. 2705, dated 17-8-1957, the central Government has applied the Act to manganese mines are not included in Schedule I of the Act and that industry is therefore not a scheduled industry and consequently the Act or any provision thereof cannot be applied.3. Under Sub-section (3) Section 1 of the Act as it originally stood, the provisions of the Act applied int he first instance to all factories engaged in any Scheduled industry in which fifty or more persons are employed. By Act 94 of 1956, which received the assent of the President on 28-12-1956, this provision has been...
Maroti Lutabaji Salve Vs. State Industrial Court, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ365Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who was employed as a bus conductor by the Provincial Transport Company, challenges the order of the State Industrial Court, dismissing his appeal from the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner which upheld his dismissal from service. The ground on which the petitioner requests this Court to quash the orders to that he was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers who boarded the bus belonging to the Provincial Transport Company, at Chargaon, though he was required by the Motor Vehicles Rules to issue such tickets to the passengers before the bus started on its journey. The facts are not in dispute. But what is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that he had actually received the fares from the passengers and that he was in the process of preparing their tickets when the ticket inspector who had entered the bus checked the tickets of the passengers and found that two of them had not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »