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.
Britannia Biscuit Company Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ371Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Law; Civil LawAWARD1. This is a reference by the Government of Bombay for adjudication of a dispute between the Britannia Biscuit Company, Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen (excluding clerical staff) employed under it over the following demands :- 'Demand No. 1. - An additional pro rata bonus equivalent to two months earnings for the financial year ending 1955 should be paid to all employees who have worked during the same financial year without any conditions attached to it. 'Demand No. 2. - A pro rata bonus equivalent to four months' earnings inclusive to the allowances for the year ending March 1956 should be paid to all employees who have worked during the said year without any conditions attached to it.' 2. In the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workmen by the General Kamgar Union (Red Flag) it has stated that the company was started in January 1925 with head office and factory at Calcutta. At that time it was a limb of a British concern, Peak F...
State Vs. Kaikhushroo Merwan Irani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC681(Bom)
Chainani, J.1. These three appeals Nos. 1216, 1217 and 1218 have been heard together, as they are against the same respondents and arose out of proceedings held before the Sales Tax Officer, witness Kulkarni. In the case giving rise to appeal No. 1216, the charge against the accused was that they had knowingly submitted false returns for the quarters ending 31st March, 1952, 30th June, 1952, and 31st October, 1952. The evidence to prove these charges was of two kinds. There was a statement made by respondent No. 1 before witness Kulkarni, who was then the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement, at Bombay. In this statement respondent No. 1 has admitted that the returns submitted by the respondents were incorrect. This statement was recorded on the 8th February, 1955. Kulkarni has stated in his evidence that on 30th September, 1954, the accused's premises were visited and that certain account books had then been seized. He has also stated in the cross-examination that he inspected these account...
Rawalpindi theatres Private Ltd. Vs. Film Group
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1373
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court granting conditional leave to the defendants in a summary suit. The order directed that the petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000 within a specified time as a condition to the right of the defendants to appear in and defend the suit.2. The facts are that the plaintiffs are producers of a film and they produced a film by the name of 'Musafir'. Defendants No. 1 are distributors and they entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to take up the distribution of this film for Delhi and U.P., and under this agreement the defendants were to pay Rs. 1,35,000 to the plaintiffs. Rs. 65,000 were to be paid during production and Rs. 70,000 against the delivery of prints. It is common ground that Rs. 48,000 were paid by the defendants as against the sum of Rs. 65,000 which was to be paid. It is the case of the defendants that on May 3, 1957, they entered into various agree...
Bakhtwar Ice Factory Vs. Chunilal Sonmal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1371
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This revision application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are money-lenders and who hold a licence under the Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946, to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000 odd against the defendants on a promissory note executed by the defendants. An application was made by the defendants under Section 30 of the said Act for accounts. The learned City Civil Court Judge held that the application was not maintainable and dismissed it. It is against that order that this revision application has been filed.'Loan' is defined in Section 2(9), and that sub-section states 'loan' means an advance at interst whether of money or in kind, but it does not include...and the relevant sub-clause is Clause (g). It says:except for the purposes of Sections 23 and 25,(i) a loan to a trader;'Trader' is defined in Section 2(18) and means, among others, 'a factory owner'. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a factory owner. As a matter of fact, the promissory note wa...
Motibhai Tricumbhai Desai Vs. Chhaganbhai Amthabhai Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1238
J.C. Shah1. The plaintiff is the owner of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 931, 933, 940, 930, 929, 932/1, 932/2-3, 934/1 and 934/2. The defendants were the tenants of the plaintiff of those lands. The defendants failed to pay the rent due by them for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The plaintiff then filed an application before the Mamlatdar for an order in ejectment against the defendants for non-payment of rent for the said two years. The Mamlatdar passed an order directing defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to pay one-third of the crop share valued at Rs. 989-5-0 within 15 days failing which it was declared that the tenancy was liable to be terminated. This order was passed on December 5, 1951, and was communicated to the defendants on December 17, 1951. On December 29, 1951, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the District Deputy Collector, Kaira, Nadiad Prant. That appeal was heard and decided on February 2, 1952, and intimation of dismissal of the appeal was given on Februa...
Shiosingh Daulatsing Rajput Vs. the Bombay Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR210
Kotval J.1. This petition arises out of an application made by the petitioner Shiosingh for his reinstatement in possession of a field under Section 19(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.2. The circumstances under which the petitioner preferred that application before the revenue authorities are as follows: On April 26, 1954, respondent No. 4 Bhikanrao purchased the field, survey No. 56, from respondent No. 5, Chandansingh, by a registered sale-deed. Shiosingh is the brother of Chandan-singh. Shiosingh filed his application under Section 19(2) of the Act on November 8, 1954, alleging that he had cultivated the field in the year 1953-54, that he was a protected lessee of the said field; that he had been forcibly dispossessed by Bhikanrao; and that, therefore, he should be reinstated in possession.3. Respondent No. 4 Bhikanrao pleaded in reply to this application, that he had purchased the field for a sum of Rs. 4,000 from Chandansingh, that the two brothers in c...
Mulchand DevidIn and ors. Vs. Sugnamal Radhamal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom90; (1958)60BOMLR1343; ILR1959Bom458
1. This is an appeal by the original defendants against a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 6030/- with future interest at 4 per cent. per annum from the date of the decree till realization. The suit was filed on a promissory note for Rs. 6,000/- executed by defendant No. 5 Babulal in favour of the plaintiff n 21st February 1952. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are brothers, while Babulal is the son of defendant No. 2 Ramprasad. According to the plaintiff, the defendants carried on business at Sagar in the name of 'Mulchand & Brothers' and this joint family firm had taken a contract of supplying meat, vegetables etc., to the Central Ammunition Depot at Pulgaon, and defendant No. 2's son Babulal, defendant No. 5, was managing that work. It was the plaintiff's case that an amount of Rs. 6000/- was borrowed on 21-2-1952 by defendant No. 5 from the plaintiff for the purpose of the said joint family business and consequently all defendants were liable. The plaintiff claimed to recover...
Rambhau Sakharam Nagre Vs. D.G. Tatke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom538; (1959)61BOMLR148; ILR1959Bom462; (1959)ILLJ576Bom
Vyas, J.1. These are applications under Article 227 of the Constitution wherein the petitioners have prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ to set aside the order of 6th November 1957 of the Authority appointed under the minimum Wages Act. By the said order the Authority held that the worker as in certain bidi manufacturing concerns were not entitled to the paid at the revised rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis from 1st September 1956 to 15th December 1956. These applications raised common questions, and the questions are:1. Is the issue of a notification by the State government under Section 26, Sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act a quasi-judicial act or an administrative act?2. Even if it be an administrative act, could it be challenged as an arbitrary act, if only one party is heard before the act and no opportunity to be heard is given to the other side?2. These questions arise upon the following facts. The petitioner in application No. 68 of 1958 is the President of th...
E.C. Pereira Vs. Somani and Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1369
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is rather an unfortunate ease where the application of the petitioner under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act has, been held to be barred by limitation. In all cases where a party's right is defeated by limitation, the Court is anxious to help the party. But in matters of limitation the Court cannot be influenced by considerations of justice and equity. The very basis of the law of limitation is that the right of a party is defeated because he did not present his claim in time.2. The facts briefly are that the suit in the Small Causes Court was decided on October 5, 1956. Section 38 gives a party eight days' time to make an application to the Full Court for a new trial. On October 12, 1956, an application for a new trial was prepared by the advocate for the petitioner along with the application for extension of time for filing the memorandum of grounds. Unfortunately, the advocate of the petitioner, instead of presenting this to the Court, sen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›