Mumbai Court August 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.
Sardarsing Amarsing Gaherwal Vs. Ramakaran Ramnath Upadhaya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR984
(1) This is first appeal arises out of an execution proceeding and it raises a question under clause (2) of Art 182 of the Indian Limitation Act. The question is as to the construction of the word appeal in clause (2) of Art 182. Does the word mead an appeal from the decree which is sought to be executed or would it include an appeal from an order having direct and immediate connection with the decree which is sought to be executed This is interesting point arises upon the following circumstances: (2) The appellant plaintiff filed a suit, being Suit No. 15 of 1948 to set aside a certain sale deed which was passed by his father. The value of the property that was the subject matter of the sale deed was Rs. 17, 187-8-0 The dispute was referred to arbitration and the arbitrator made an award upon which a decree was based. The award decree was passed on 19-10-19500 and it was for the amount of Rs. 4,000/- the plaintiff filed a Miscellaneoous Application being Miscellaneous Application NO. ...
Kanbi Chhagan Manji Vs. Aher Jiva Mala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR50
Shah, J.1. One Sindhi Piru Adam was a barkhalidar of a piece of land admeasuring 8 acres and 6 gunthas bearing survey Nos. 104 and 480 of Agatarai. The barkhalidar applied to the Mamlatdar under Section 8 of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act XXVI of 1951, for allotment of land for personal cultivation, and an order was passed allotting to him the entire area of the land, survey Nos. 104 and 480, and the barkhalidar was put in possession thereof. The barkhalidar then sold the land to Aher Jiva Mala and Aher Mulji Gokal. The petitioner, who was a tenant on the land before he was dispossessed in consequence of the allotment, then applied to pre-empt the land sold to opponents Nos. 1 and 2. He claimed to exercise the right conferred upon him by Section 8(2)(a) of the Barkhali Abolition Act. The Mamlatdar granted the application of the petitioner. In appeal to the Deputy Collector, the order passed by the Mamlatdar was confirmed. Against that order, a revision application was filed befo...
K.S. Digvijaysinhji Hamirsinhji Vs. Nanji Savdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR44
Shah, J.1. This Special Application raises a question as to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, No. XXV of 1951. The lands in dispute were within the jurisdiction of the former Virpur State. One Hamirsinhji Thakore of Virpur died in 1937, leaving him surviving his son Dilipsinhji who succeeded to the Virpur Gadi according to the custom of primogeniture. Dilipsinhji died in the year 1945 and he was succeeded to the gadi by his son Narendrasinhji. On June 1, 1947, Narendrasinhji granted certain agricultural lands as 'giras' to the petitioner Digvijay-sinhji who was the grantor's paternal uncle. These lands were situate in the villages of Matiya and Gunda. On February 11, 1948, an exchange was effected between Narendrasinhji and the petitioner whereby the lands in Matiya and Gunda were returned to Narendrasinhji and the petitioner was granted certain lands at Kharedi which are the subject-matter of this petition. On February 17, 1948, entries were ...
Vishnu Kirpalani Vs. Vishnu Hirachand Kirpalani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR100
Chagla, C.J.(After stating facts and dealing with points not material to this report his Lordship proceeds.)(1) A very interesting point has been argued before us as to the date which this decree which we have passed in appeal shall bear. Both the Advocate General and Mr. Laud request us to ante-date the decree and to direct that this decree shall bear the same date as the decree passed by the trial Court. What is urged is that under O. 41, R. 33, of the Code, the powers of the appellate Court are very wide and the appellate Court has the power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and It is pointed out that what we are doing by this appeal is to decide for judicial separation in favour of the wife. If that is our view, there is no reason why we should not date the decree as the decree originally passed by the City Civil Court.(2) First turning to the question of the power of the High Court to ante-date the decree, the first provision which migh...
Shankarrao Baladas Nikhare Vs. Second Additional District Judge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR218
Kotval, J.1. This is a petition by a defeated candidate in a municipal election to the Corporation of the city of Nagpur. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were candidates for election as councillor from ward No. 29 of the city of Nagpur. The election was held on June 11, 1957, between 8-30 a.m. and 4-30 p.m. Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 had also filed their nomination papers but had withdrawn before the date of election and they are made parties in this petition to obviate any formal objection. Respondent No. 2 was declared elected. He obtained 967 votes while the petitioner got 946 votes. The difference thus was only of 21 votes.2. In the election petition filed by the petitioner under Section 428 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, the Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur, acting as the District Court declared 16 of these 21 votes invalid. Thus the difference in the votes obtained by respondent No. 2, the elected candidate, and the petitioner was only of 5 votes. The ...
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona Vs. Shantaram Shamr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR95
Shah, J.(1) By a notification dated 25th February 1952 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of Bombay notified part of City Survey No. 369A admeasuring 26010 square feet of Nana Peth, Poona, as likely to be needed for a public purpose viz: vegetable market and a cart stand. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded to the claimant Rs. 61, 470 by valuing the land at Rs. 4-8-0 per square feet because in his view that land could be developed by laying it out into 14 building plots in two rows divided by a road. He awarded Re. 1 for the road-land admeasuring 289' X 25'. In addition, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded to the claimant th e15 per cent. solatium. The claimant feeling dissatisfied with the award, applied for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Poona, who heard the reference, confirmed the valuation of the land made by the Land Acquisition Officer. But he awarded to the claimant compensation at...
Bai Jamna Vs. Bai Dhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR419
Vyas, J.1. This application which is made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners raises questions under Section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as it stood before the amending Act XIII of 1956 came into force on August 1, 1956. What are the rights conferred on a tenant under Section 5 Is he a statutory tenant or a contractual tenant Are these rights (tenancy rights under Section 5) heritable? These are the questions which fall to be determined in this application and they arise in the following circumstances.2. The petitioners are the landlords of 8. Nos. 108/3 and 193/3 situated at village Katargam, district Surat. Respondent No. 1, Bai Dhani, is the daughter of one Hari Lala. Hari Lala came on these lands as a tenant in the year 1954-55. It was a one vear's lease under which he came Into occupation of the lands. Hari Lala died on September 14, 1955. Thereafter, the present petitioners made an application, being Tenancy Application ...
Gajanan Dhundiraj Deshpande Vs. Shridhar Moreshwar Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR170
Gokhale, J.1. These two second appeals are filed by the original plaintiff against the dismissal of his two suits by both the lower Courts. The few facts which it is necessary to state for appreciating the points involved, in these appeals are as follows:-2. Moreshwar and Gajanan were brothers and they were co-sharers in two villages of Nandora and Tuljapur. It appears that on May 14, 1930, there was a partition between these two brothers with respect to the home-farm lands in possession of their family, but the proprietorship in respect of these two villages was not partitioned. Moreshwar, the elder brother, acted as the lambardar in both these villages. In 1931 pre-emption proceedings were started by Moreshwar with regard to field No. 17 of Nandora. These proceedings lasted for five years from 1931 to 1936, and ultimately in January 1936, field No. 17 was acquired by Moreshwar as a result of these proceedings. In 1937 a portion of two acres out of field No. 34/1 situated in mouza Tul...
Simplex Mills Ltd. Vs. P.S. Subramanyam, Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR711(Bom)
K.T. Desai, J. 1. The petitioners are a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. For the assessment year 1952-53 the petitioners made an advance payment of tax amounting to Rs. 10,75,017-9-0 pursuant to the provisions of section 18A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On 30th August, 1952, the petitioners were regularly assessed under section 23(3) of the Act for the said assessment year. The petitioners' total income for that year was determined to be Rs. 14,93,269, and a sum of Rs. 6,46,329-9-0 was determined as being the amount of tax payable by the petitioners for the said assessment year. 2. Under the provisions of section 18A(5) of the Act, as it then stood, it was provided as follows : 'The Central Government shall pay on any amount paid under this section simple interest at two per cent. per annum from the date of payment to the date of the provisional assessment made under section 23B, or if no such assessment has been made, to the date of the assess...
Prabhat Brass Band Vs. their Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ78Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10(1), 25F, 25H and 33A; Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956AWARD1. This industrial dispute between Prabhat Brass Band, Poona, and the workmen employed under them was referred to me for adjudication under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Government of Bombay, Labour and Social Welfare Department, Order No. AJP. 38(1) 57, dated 28 April 1958. The demands of the workmen are mentioned in the schedule annexed to the order of reference. They will be reproduced in due course. 2. The usual notices were sent to the parties and the General Secretary, Band Kamgar Union, Poona, filed a statement of claim on behalf of the workmen on 16 May 1953. In response to the general notice under form VIII, 52 workmen who styled themselves as the present employees of Prabhat Brass Band, Poona, filed a separate abatement of claim on 30 June 1958. To the first statemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »