Mumbai Court August 1958 Judgments
The Club, Mahabaleshwar Vs. the Municipality of Mahableshwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR52
K.T. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a private Club at Mahabaleshwar. The premises of the Club are situate within the municipal limits of the Mahabaleshwar Municipality. Under the provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, the Mahabaleshwar Municipality has a right, subject to the sanction of the Commissioner, of levying taxes. Clause (xi) of Sub-section (1) of Section 59 provides that the municipality may levyany other tax (not being a toll on motor vehicles and trailers, save as provided by Section 14 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1935):In exercise of the powers conferred by the Bombay District Municipal Act, the Municipality has framed rules levying certain taxes. Rule 1 so framed runs as follows:-The municipality shall levy a tax in respect of all hotels, boarding houses, eating houses, restaurants, tea or coffee houses and other places where food, meals, refreshments, tea, coffee or other non-intoxicating drinks are provided on payment of money.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Cycles Ltd. and anr. Vs. their Workmen (Supervisors and ors.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ293Bom
AWARD1. In this reference award - part I was made by me on 7 February 1958 regarding the demands of the supervisors at the Worli factory [Bombay Government Gazette, Part I-L, dated 6 March 1958, at p. 1172]. The demand in respect of the workmen employed at the chain plant at Kandivli was kept pending. 2. By an order dated 14 January 1958, the Central Distributors, Ltd., Kandivili, which bad taken over the chain plant from the Hind Cycles, Ltd., were added as a party to these proceedings on the application of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha. The Central Distributors, Ltd., Kandivali, and the sabha arrived at an agreement on 18 March 1958 regarding all the demands pertaining to workmen employed in the chain plant at Kandivali, except the demand in respect of bonus for the year 1955. I made award - part II on 24 April 1958, in terms of the agreement [Bombay Government Gazette, Part I-L, dated 22 May 1958, at p. 2645]. In that agreement it is stated : 'The demand of bonus for the year 1955 i...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Krishna Gokhale and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Arjun Kokate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR180
Chainani, J.(1) These three second appeals have been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Shah, as in his opinion they involved a question as to the interpretation of Articles 120 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act. Appeal No. 1490 of 1955 arises out of suit No. 302 of 1949 filed by Mahadeo Arjun Kokate, to whom I will hereafter refer as the plaintiff. There are six defendants in this suit, who belong to the Gokhale family. Deferndant No. 1 Vishwanath had three brothers Kashinath, Ganesh and Parsram. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Kashinath. Defendant No. 4 Ganesh died during the pendency of the suit and his son Anant has been brought on record in his place. Defendant No. 6 is the widow of Parsram, while defendant No. 5 is Parsram's grandson. The defendants' family and their bhaubhands jointly owned several properties, in which they had onefourth share. The defendants' bhaubhands sold their 12 as. share to Limayes prior to 1913. In 1903 defendant No. 1 and his brothers sep...
Tag this Judgment!Murphy Radio of India Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ297Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(5)AWARD1. This industrial dispute between the Murphy Radio of India, Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen employed under it, was referred to me for adjudication under Sub-section (5) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Government of Bombay, Labour and Social Welfare Department, Order No. AJM. 7558, dated 16 May 1958. The demand of the workmen is as follows :- 'All the employees who have served the company during the year 1958 shall be paid bonus for the year 1956 equivalent to 50 per cent (fifty per cent) of their total earnings during the said year unconditionally. The bonus should be paid to all employees irrespective of whether they are at present in the service of the company or not. Bonus already declared and paid may be deducted from the above bonus demand.' 2. In the statement of claim filed by the secretary of the union it is stated that ever since the commencement of this concern it has been enjoying continue...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Shri Bhojrajji Karansinhji Vs. Saurashtra State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR20
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. When Mr. Justice M.C. Shah and Mr. Justice Baxi of the Saurashtra High Court heard First Appeal No. 12 of 1952, certain important questions of law arose before them and they thought it necessary to refer those questions to a Full Bench. This matter has now come before us.2. In order to understand the question that we have to decide, a few facts must be stated. The plaintiff is the second son of the ex-Ruler of Sayla and on July 21, 1945, the Thakore Saheb of Sayla, the then Ruler, agreed to give to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 30,000 in lieu of residence and this caine to be given under the following circumstances. The Thakore Saheb was the karta of an impartible estate and both under the custom and the rule of Hindu law the impartible estate would go to his eldest son, but the younger sons have a right of maintenance and residence. Certain provision was made with regard to the maintenance of the plaintiff, but with regard to the residence, that claim was commuted for...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanlal Chimanlal Mehta Vs. Pramodchandra Chimanlal Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom289; (1959)61BOMLR110; ILR1959Bom822
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises two questions, one which is very simple to decide and the other of some importance. The Appellant was adjudicated insolvent on a petition presented on the 28th of November, 1957 by the Respondent basing the Petition on a debt of Rs. 3251.75 up and urging as the ground of insolvency that the property of the Appellant had been sold in execution of a decree; and the first question that was considered by the learned Judge below was whether there was a subsisting debt on which the Petition could be founded and the question that arose for consideration was whether a certation that arose for consideration was whether a certain document constituted an acknowledgment within the meaning of the Limitation Act or an acknowledgment within the meaning of Art. 1 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act. On the decision of this question depended whether there was a subsisting debt or not. Now, the document is a statement of account and it sets out the balance due to one Pramodc...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo Laboratories (India) Private Ltd. Vs. A.V. Venkateswaran and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom372; (1959)61BOMLR1; ILR1959Bom923
Chagla, C.J. 1. Although the ultimate question that we have to decide in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it raises certain questions of considerable public importance. The appellants before us are a company registered in India and they deal in antibiotics, pharmaceuticals and foods, and for the purpose of their business they have been importing into India since about February 1951 large quantities from Glaxo Laboratories Ltd., U.K. of Vitamin B.12 in bulk of the value of several lakhs of rupees every year. The appellant company admittedly is a subsidiary company of the English company. From February 1951 to May 1955 the appellants entered in their bill of entry for the purpose of customs duty the invoice value of the goods. Between June 1955 to May 1956 they showed the real value of the goods as the wholesale price of the goods in the United Kingdom, and after May 1956 they reverted to their original practice of showing the invoice value. In this appeal we are concerned in a...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwaji Esmailjee and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR682
Kotval, J.1. On March 30, 1955, the Tata Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. consigned one wagon-load of mild steel angle iron bars from the Kumardubi railway station under railway receipt No. 259507, invoice No. 2, dated March 30, 1955. The consignee was the plaintiff who is an iron and steel merchant at Nagpur. When the consignment was received at Nagpur, it was found short in weight, i.e. the goods weighed 20 tons and 3 cwts. when sent, but they were found to be only 19 tons and 3 cwts. on reweighment at Nagpur. The plaintiff sued the defendant, the Union of India, representing the South-Eastern Bail-way, for the loss of the goods.2. Now, there is no dispute as to the findings on the question of fact. Both the parties have accepted the findings of the trial Court which are as follows:-The following facts are now too clear to be disputed (as seen from the evidence on record): (1) that the consignment was loaded in an open wagon, not by the defendants' men or under their supervision though t...
Tag this Judgment!Ulhasibai Jethmal Bagmar Vs. Bhagchand Alias Bhagwandas Nemichand Marw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR103
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.] The question is whether on this oral and documentary evidence on the record the finding of the trial Court that the purchase of the two houses was benami in the name of the plaintiff can be said to be correct. Undoubtedly, the onus of proof that the transaction in suit was a benami transaction was on the defendant Bhagchand. It was his case that the mortgage deed was taken benami in the name of Sundrabai and the sale deed was also taken benami m the name of the plaintiff with a view to preventing any trouble from the Income-tax Department and that this was done in pursuance of an agreement between the two brothers. The ease of such an agreement has been held to be not established and the motive which has been put forth in support of the benami transaction also does not seem to be borne out. On the other hand, plaintiff's case that the mortgage was taken bena...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Devakinandan Kanhyalal Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom486; (1958)60BOMLR1413; 1959CriLJ1302; ILR1959Bom670
Tarkunde, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the acquittal of the respondent of offences under Sections 406 and 477A, I.P.C. The respondent was convicted of these offences by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poona Cantonment, who sentenced him. under Section 406 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months, and under Section 477A, I.P.C., to rigours imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, the additional Sessions Judge, Poona set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case was as follows:- Karasandas Bhanji, the complainant in this case, and Nevrekar are partners of a firm in Bombay called 'A. Harish and Co. Bombay.' In 1955 they agreed with the respondent (who will hereafter be refereed to as the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »