Mumbai Court September 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.
The State Vs. Abu Ismail Merchant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom408; (1959)61BOMLR345; 1959CriLJ1057; ILR1959Bom865
Shah, J.1. The accused Abu Ismail was tried in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1957 for offences under Section 411, Section 467, and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with a common jury. The jury brought in a majority verdict of 8 to 1 against the accused for the there offences charged against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the Jury and convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 411, to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition fort eh offence under Section 467, and to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has appealed to this Court.2. The prosecution ca...
Jethalal Lakhamsi Dawada Vs. Jankibai Bhagwandin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR427
Tambe, J.1. This application is made under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner prays that the order made by the Additional. Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 3 hereto, on January 8, 1958, be set aside. The petitioner also prays that consequent on the setting aside of the aforesaid order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, he be restored to the possession of the house in question.2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are: The petitioner was the tenant of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. They were granted permission on November 15, 1956, to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under Clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Kent Control Order. The petitioner then vacated the house on February 28, 1957. According to the petitioner, the house was repaired by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the repairs were completed in July 1957 and the premises became fit for occupa...
Sugandhabai Shivaram Hede and anr. Vs. Sundari Aba Mande and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR560
Gokhale, J.(1) This is an appeal by original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Sholapur, in favour of the plaintiff and dependant No. 3, who are the respondents in this appeal, declaring that the adoption of appellant No. 2 (defendant No. 2) was invalid and not binding on the respondents. The present suit came to be filed by plaintiff Sundrabai in the following circumstances.(2) Plaintiff's father Shivram died in 1918 leaving behind his widow Sugandhabai (defendant No. 1) and two daughters Nagarbai and Sundrabai (plaintiff). Defendant No. 1adopted to her husband one Bhanudas on 25-4-1937, Bhanudas being the nephew of Shivram. According to the plaintiff Bhanudas died in 1949, leaving his wodow Girjabai and it appears that a few months after Bhanudas' death Girjabai remarried. On 20-7-1950, Sugandhabai (defendant No. 1) adopted the second appellant Keshav and executed and got registered an adoption deed in that behalf. ...
Krishna Nayar Ram Nayar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR684; 1960CriLJ324
Tarkunde, J.(1) The appellant was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Bombay, under secs. 65(b), 65(F) and 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous mprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has come in appreal from the order of conviction and sentence.(2) The prosecution case was that on 2-11-1957, a Ploice party had gone for patrolling in the chandivali Jungle that they came across a working still for the manufacture of illicit liquor at about 7 p.m. on that day, and that the appellant was found operating that still and was arrested on the spot. the Police party seized a quantity of illicit liquor, some wash, and certain utensils for the manufacture of liquor. The appellant pleaded that he was not guilty of the offences charged against him, that he was not arrested in Chandivali Jungle, and that he was picked up from his house at Kurla Road at about 5.30 p.m. on that day.(3) The...
East India Trading Co. Vs. Badat and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom414; (1959)61BOMLR333; ILR1959Bom1004
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Mr. Justice Mody and the learned Judge begins his judgment by stating: 'This is a normal case wherein abnormal developments have taken place'. We wholly subscribed to that proposition. We might add that this is not only a normal case but a very simple case were every conceivable technical defence has been taken in order to put off the evil day when judgment will be passed against the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit. Mr. Thakore, who has done his best for his client, realising how dishonest the defence was and arguing before what he might have felt a very hostile Bench, did not omit to put before us every possible circumstance which could help his clients. But the more he argued the more we felt that the attempt was, as Mr. Thakore frankly conceded, to see that the judgment was delayed as far as possible, and Mr. Thakore also told us that as hid clients were not in a position to pay any amount at all it did not matte...
Deoman Shamji Patil Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom284; (1959)61BOMLR30; 1959CriLJ825; ILR1959Bom852
Tarkunde, J.1. Two interesting questions of law arise in the case. One is whether police officers are empowered by law in the case of a person suspected or accused of an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, to take that person, against his will, to a doctor for medical examination. The second question arises if the first is answered in the negative, and the at question is whether, such a person can lawfully exercise the right of private defence agaisnt the force sought to be used in taking him to a doctor.2. This being a criminal revision application the facts are no longer in dispute. The petitioner, who will be referred to hereafter as teh accused, is a resident of Satana in the Nasik District. On the date of the offence, information was received at the police station at Satana that the accused was behaving in a disorderly manner in a public street under the influence of drink. Thereupon some police constables went to the spot and brought the accused to the police station. They ...
The State of Bombay Vs. Morarji Cooverji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR318
K.T. Desai J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts as above, proceeded:] The vacancy referred to in the order of requisition, dated May 11, 1957, is the vacancy which occurred on January 20, 1954, when the bailiff of the Court of Small Causes completed giving possession of the whole of the said flat No. 5 to the petitioner. The said order proceeds on the footing as if no intimation of vacancy had been given. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the vacancy which occurred on that day was the vacancy in respect whereof due intimation had been given by the petitioner, that after the expiration of a, period of one month from the date of the receipt of such intimation the petitioner was, entitled to occupy the said premises and that he had in fact lawfully occupied the same on March 3, 1954, after the expiration of the said period of one month. It is further urged that the said vacancy having ceased, the Government could not thereafter requisition the said premises as it had purp...
Chandrabhaga Sadashiv and anr. Vs. Bhikachand Hansaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom549; (1959)61BOMLR364; ILR1959Bom838
Patel, J.1. The plaintiff appellant filed the suit for refund of earnest paid, under an agreement to purchase, to the defendant on 6-2-1950. According to him the defendant has committed the breach. Previous to this there was an arbitration between the parties, but the application made by the arbitrator for a decree in terms of the award was dismissed by the Court as the award was not registered. The defendants raised various contentions to the claims by their written statement one amongst them being a legal one, that the suit was not maintainable in view of Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 as there was a previous arbitration. 2. The trial Judge raised a preliminary issue and held that the suit was barred and dismissed the same with costs. Plaintiff's appeal to the District Court failed. 3. The plaintiff thereupon came to the High Court in Second Appeal which was heard by Mr. Justice Bavdekar. He did not accept the view of the Courts below. He held agreeing with...
Engineering Staff Union Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom390; (1959)61BOMLR298; ILR1959Bom1585
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal raises some important questions as to the interpretation of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and we have listened to a very able argument from Mr. Phadke about the manner in which that section should be construed. It appears that the first appellant which is a union of workers who were employed in the second respondent company made certain demands on 27-3-1956 and as these demands were not accepted by the second respondent company, an application was made to the Conciliation Officer on 6-4-1956. After some preliminary discussions between May and September 1956 conciliation proceedings commenced and ultimately, as unfortunately so often happens in labour disputes, they failed. The Conciliation Officer made a report under Section 12 on 2-4-1957. On the 30th of July 1957 Government referred to adjudication certain items in the disputes. But they refused to refer certain other items and on 14-8-1957 the Government communicated to the parties the rea...
Engineering Staff Union and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ479Bom
K.T. Desai, J. * * * 1. The principal contentions urged by the petitioners are that the reasons given by Government for not referring some of the demands made by the workmen are not reasons warranted by the provisions of the Act, that in giving some of the reasons the Government has usurped the functions of an industrial tribunal and has in fact adjudicated upon some of the demands and that the Government has not, in respect of some of the demands, applied its mind to the matter. I will proceed to deal with the various items, disputes in connexion wherewith have not been referred by the Government and the grounds given in respect thereof. 2. Pay scales. - The demand of the union in connexion with pay scales is set out in Ex. A to the petition. The union demanded that the existing pay of the employees should be revised and adjusted according to the scales set out. The union further demanded that scales of pay should be made effective retrospectively from the date of joining of each empl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »