Mumbai Court July 1958 Judgments
National Industrial Works, Bombay Vs. Jamnadas Bhanji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ518Bom
ORDER1. The facts leading to these applications for approval of the applicant company's action, under S. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are briefly as under. By a notice dated 17 May 1958, the company notified its operatives that on account of non-availability of raw materials it was impossible to work the factory in both the shifts and the management had decided to close down the working of the second shift with effect from 19 May 1958. The notice further stated that the services of 50 employees named in the list attached to it would be terminated from the date of the notice on payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice as retrenchment compensation which they were asked to receive from the office on the same day. Four more employees were further retrenched in accordance with the notice. Two of them were retrenched on 31 May 1958 and two on 9 June 1958. The company has now applied for approval of its action in retrenching the opponents. 2. The company has filed a copy ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Textile Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Employees (Chalisgaon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ83Bom
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Judge of the First Labour Court at Bombay, dated 31 March 1958, directing the mill to reinstate the respondent-employees and to pay them half the wages including dearness allowance which they would have earned from the date of their discharge to the date of their reinstatement with a further direction that the amount of notice salary and retrenchment compensation which they would have already been paid may be set off against this amount. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. The appellant mill gave a notice of retrenchment to sixteen workers including the fourteen respondents on 1 November 1957. These employees were apprentices, clerks and mazdoors. The retrenchment was found necessary as a result of closure of the second shift. The respondents, it may be noted, are not workers in the second shift. On 9 November 1957, a notice of change was given to the effect that the company wishes to abolish 27 posts, including the p...
Tag this Judgment!Hasanbhai Adambhai Malvat Vs. Adambhai Malka Talat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR415
Vyas J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it raises a question of construction of Section 31A(b), Section 31B(1) and Section 34(1) and (5) of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner Hasanbhai Adambhai Malvat has prayed for the setting aside of an order made by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal on March 25, 1958, by which order the Tribunal confirmed an order made by the Assistant Collector on December 9, 1957. By the aforesaid order dated December 9, 1957, the Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner from an order made by the Tenancy Mahalkari on August 5, 1957. The circumstances which have given rise to this application may now be briefly stated.2. The petitioner is the landlord. He is the owner of S. No. 2038 of Dhanduka, District Ahmedabad. The land comprising S. No. 2038 admeasures 40 acres. Out of this land, the petitioner himself is personally cultivating 20 acres and the remaining 20 acres of land has been leased out by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Divisi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR607; [1959]10STC286(Bom)
Vyas, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner press, Messrs Saraswati Printing Press, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the setting aside of the order dated 7th September, 1956, of the Hyderabad Sales Tax Tribunal, by which order the Tribunal confirmed the order dated 22nd July, 1955, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Hyderabad. 2. The circumstances which have given rise to this application may be briefly stated. The Marathawada Prakashan Limited, a public limited company, which was registered under the Hyderabad Companies Act, was running a printing press known by the name of the Saraswati Printing Press. This press is situated in Aurangabad. The above-mentioned public limited company sold this press to Messrs Parmanand Bapuji Muley on 1st March, 1954. The petitioner press contends that it accepts contracts for printing works and for the supply of printed goods. On 10th March, 1955, the Sales Tax Authority under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Laxman Belosay Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1256
K.T. Desai1. The petition before me raises a very important question relating to the powers and functions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is a councillor from Ward No. 10. He claims that he is a taxpayer and contributes to the municipal fund of the Corporation. At a meeting of the Corporation held on July 10, 1958, Dr. R.N. Kulkarni, a Municipal Councillor, proposed a resolution which ran as follows:That the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay have learnt with deep regret about the execution of Mr. Imre Nagy, a former Prime Minister of Hungary and his three associates contrary to the doctrine of 'Panchshila' enunciated by our beloved Prime Minister and practised by our country and accepted by other countries of the world. The Corporation hereby express their horror at the execution under peculiar conditions of those fighters for freedom of their motherland who, by displaying great courage and steadfastness even at the cost of their lives in the cause of their co...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Rukhi and ors. Vs. Vrajlal Jechand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR408
Vyas, J. (1) This is an application made under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by three petitioners wherein the petitioners have prayed for the setting aside of the order made by the Government of Bombay on 5-2-1958. By the said order, the Government reversed the order of the Prant Officer dated 24-4-1953. By his order dated 24-4-1953 the Prant Officer held that the application made by the present opponent No. 1 of 4-11-1947 for the restoration to him of the land from which he was ejected was barred by limitation and he ordered that the said application do stand dismissed. By an order dated 5-2-1958 made by the Government of Bombay, ;the Government allowed the aforesaid application of opponent No. 1 and directed that the said application of opponent No. 1 and directed that the possession of the lands which are the subject matter of the present application be restored to him. It is from this order of Government dated 5-2-1958 that the present application under Art. 227 of the Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Shrishankar Marwadi Vs. Vithoba Tatya Nandarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR159
Vyas, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Satyanarayan Shrishankar Marwadi, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order passed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal on November 8, 1957, by which order the Tribunal confirmed the order made by the Prant Officer on July 3, 1957. It may be noted that the Prant Officer by his order dated July 3, 1957, had confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar dated January 31, 1957.2. This application raises a question under Sections 14 and 24 of the Tenancy Act, and the question is this where a landlord seeks to eject the tenant upon the ground that the tenant had done acts of destruction and permanent injury to the land, must he give two separate notices to the tenant, one under Section 14 and the next one under Section 24? In other words, can a landlord start a proceeding under Section 24 for ejectment of the tenant without having given him in the first instance a notice under ...
Tag this Judgment!Surjuprasad Gumasta and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom122; (1958)60BOMLR1468; ILR1959Bom641
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of Section 59 of the States Reorganisation Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Suruprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, and this petition was presented before the Nagpur High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service.2. Now, the scheme of Section 59 is this that the Legislature had to deal with the situation that arose by reason of the fact that the old Nagpur High Court ceased to function, that it became the High Court of the new State of Madhya Prad...
Tag this Judgment!Bissesar House Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom130; (1958)60BOMLR1395; ILR1959Bom620; [1958]9STC654(Bom)
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. An interesting and important question with regard to the question of limitation under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 arises in this Full Bench. The facts giving rise to this Full Bench are these The petitioner is a registered dealer and his chargeable accounting year is from the 1st July to the 30th June. He made his return and paid the tax which according to him was due for the year 1-7-1951 to 30-6-1952, 1-7-1952 to 31-12-1956 the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a notice under Section 11(2). This notice was served upon the assessee with regard to the first year on 4-1-1957 and with regard to the second year on 8-1-1957. The contention of the assessee was that this notice was bad because it was served three years after the end of the chargeable accounting year, and this petition was filed in this Court challenging the notice and for an order preventing the Commissioner to act upon the notice.2. In order to understand the question that we have ...
Tag this Judgment!Surjuprasad Dwarkaprasad Gumashta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ572Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of S. 59 of the States Reorganization Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Surjuprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, and this petition was presented before the Nagpur High Court and the petition was admitted by that High Court. Then came the States Reorganization Act and this petition was transferred to the Bombay High Court under Sub-section (2) of S. 59. The petition now comes before the Bombay High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service. 2. Now, the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »