Mumbai Court July 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.
Tarabai Madhaorao Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom72; (1959)61BOMLR41; ILR1959Bom560
S.P. Kotval, J.1. The order in this Special Civil Application shall also govern the disposal of Special Civil Application No. 60 of 1958. The facts as also the points arising in both these Special Civil Applications are common and a common argument was addressed by consent of counsel concerned. It will be sufficient to state the facts in Special Civil Application No. 59 of 1958.2. The fourth respondent Ganesh was a protected lessee of the petitioner. On 23.12.52, the land-holder gave him notice terminating his lease under the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act on the ground that the former required the land for cultivating it personally. In pursuance of this notice, the fourth respondent consented to the delivery of possession an possession was delivered to the landholder on 1-4-1953. A few months later, on 23-8-1954, the former protected lessee Ganesh put in an application under Section 9(6) of the Act against the petitioner and three other p...
Deoli Bakaram and ors. Vs. the State Industrial Court, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom70; (1958)60BOMLR1427; ILR1959Bom550
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This order will also govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 118 of 1958, 119 of 1958, 120 of 1958 and 121 of 1958.2. The petitioners in all these cases were employed in the Empress Mills at Nagpur. All of them have been retired from service upon the ground that they have completed 30 years service or over on 1-9-1956. This was done in pursuance of an agreement arrived at between the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh on the one hand and the Central India Spinning, Weaving and . respondent No.3 on the other. Under this agreement, each of the petitioners was paid 15 days basic wages and dearness allowance per completed year of service as compensation and in addition one month's salary in lieu of notice.3. The petitioners contend that the agreement was mala fide, that it was entered into by a Union of which they were not members and that each of them was fit and healthy and able to work in satisfactory manner. They also alleged that while implementing the agreement a number...
Kodan Ranglal Power Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR86
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dated November 7, 1957, and for issue of such other writ, order or direction as may be approved. This petition was heard along with Special Civil Applications Nos. 92/58, 93/58 and 109/58.2. In all these petitions the point taken is that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeals before it upon the basis of the decision in Surendraraj v. State of Bombay [1958] N.L.J. 282. That is a decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal itself. Since the facts out of which these petitions arise are somewhat different it will be desirable to make separate mention of the facts out of which each petition arises.3. We shall first deal with petition No. 67 of 1958. Here, the petitioner had made an application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gondia, under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolit...
Manager, Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory Vs. First Civil J. First Clas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom181; (1959)61BOMLR39; ILR1959Bom850
S.P. Kotwal, J. 1. This matter arises out of proceedings taken under the Payment of Wages Act, before the first opponent who is the authority appointed under the payment of Wages Act. 2. Opponent No. 2 Hiraman, who was a bidi worker in the factory of the petitioner, made an application along with his counsel (the third opponent) for payment of delayed wages and also for compensation under the provision of Section 15(2) and (3) of the Act. The petitioner raised several defence including the defence that the application was barred under the provisions of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings an application on behalf of the opponent No. 2 Hiraman was moved on 5-10-57, praying that the petitioner should be directed to make discovery of certain documents for the relevant period for which the wages were claimed. In that application Hiraman stated that the petitioner maintained a register of workers and a payment register in which the wages disbursed to the workers were mentioned. T...
Jashoda Factories (Private) Ltd., Bombay Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC508(Bom)
Kotval, J.1. This is a petition preferred against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Eastern Division, Nagpur. The petitioner claims that certain orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the order of the Deputy Commissioner refered to above be quashed. 2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State by the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner-company has filed a second appeal before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur, which appeal is pending, and in view of this it is not entitled to prosecute this petition. 3. The agrument is twofold, namely, first that the petitioner has another remedy, and secondly, that in this very matter between the same parties a previous order was passed by Mr. Justice Sen of the then High Court at Nagpur. By that order the petitioner was ordered to exhaust its remedies against the impugned order under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act. 4. Having heard counsel we are satisfied that thi...
Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom225; (1958)60BOMLR1440; ILR1959Bom527; (1959)ILLJ468Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order passed by the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, in the matter arising under the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.2. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner is known as the Empress Mills Nagpur. These mills are five in number and are known and styled as Empress Mills No. 1, Empress Mills No. 2 Empress Mills No. 3, Empress Mills No. 4 and Empress Mills No. 5. The respondent No. 2 is a recognised Union for the local area of Nagpur in respect of Textile Industry at Nagpur.3. On 7-1-1956 the petitioner i.e., the Empress Mills, served a notice of change on the respondent No. 2. After discussion over the matter, an agreement was reached between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on 17-1-1956 and it was agreed between the parties that Empress Mills No. 1 should be demolished and persons who used to work ...
Munnibai Vs. Dhanush
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom243; (1958)60BOMLR1351; ILR1959Bom545
1. This appeal arises out of the proceedings started by the present appellant under the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) for being appointed as the guardian of her minor daughter Benibai, and for getting custody of the child. The appellant and the respondent were married before 1952 and the minor Benibai was born to them on 26th September 1952. It seems that disagreement arose between the married couple and it would appear that a criminal case was filed against the husband. ultimately there was a compromise and on 27th April 1955 there was an agreement between the parties granting divorce to the wife according to caste custom and a term of that compromise appears to be that the appellant was to hand over the custody of her daughter to the respondent Dhanush, her husband and accordingly the respondent got the custody of the child. Soon after this divorce, it appears that the respondent married again and on 27th June 1955, the present application was filed by the appellant for appo...
Kalidas Narsing Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom436; (1958)60BOMLR1377; ILR1959Bom537
ORDER1. The revision application raises a question of Court-fees. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner, alleged that he was in the service of the Maharaja of Dharampur from 1926 to 1946 and that a resolution is passed by the Maharana on the 24th February 1948 directing that he should be paid a pension of Rs. 160 per month. The Dharampur State paid him pension till integration which was on 10-6-1948, and the State of Bombay also paid him the pension for two months for June and July. Thereafter the State stopped paying him pension and he filed a suit both against the Union of India and the State of Bombay for a declaration that the Union of India or the State of Bombay was liable under the resolution to pay the amount, and for a mandatory injunction calling upon one or the other to pay this amount to him. The case of the plaintiff was that this suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and therefore he was entitled to value it at a notional amount. The contention of the Stat...
Mahadeo Apparao Wale Vs. Isamiya Abdul Aziz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1141
Chainani, J.1. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 352 and 447, Indian Penal Code, against the respondents in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol. The evidence in the case was recorded by Mr. S.B. Joglekar. Thereafter he wrote his judgment and fixed the hearing on May 29, 1957, for delivering judgment. On that day the accused respondents were absent at the time when the judgment was to be pronounced. Mr. Joglekar, therefore, did not deliver the judgment and directed warrants to be issued for the arrest of the accused. Thereafter, he was succeeded by Mr. L.D. Shinde, who signed the judgment written by Mr. Joglekar and pronounced it on July 30, 1957. By this judgment the accused were convicted and sentenced. They appealed against their convictions and the sentences passed upon them to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that Mr. Shinde had not adopted the judgment written by his predecessor a...
Abdul Majid Ibrahim Vs. Bhaurao Atmaram Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom67; (1958)60BOMLR1434; ILR1959Bom502
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code of an order of the Second Additional District Judge, Amraoti, dismissing the applicant's application for leave to appeal as pauper.2. The applicant preferred an application before the District Court Amraoti on 14-3-1955. The application went up before Mr. R.N. Bongirwar, who was the then Second Additional District Judge, Amraoti. On 16-4-1955 the learned Judge made the following order:'There is reason to believe that the trial Court's decree is erroneous. Notice of the pauper application be given to the non-applicants and Collector as similar to Order 33 Rule 6 (sic).'When the matter came up again before the Second Additional District Judge Mr. Bongirwar was no longer there and his place was taken by Mr. V.W. Samudra. Before Mr. Samudra a contention was raised on behalf of the non-applicant that the decree appealed from was not contrary to law or usage having the force of law or was n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »