Mumbai Court November 1959 Judgments
Bapalalbhai Godabhai Kothari Vs. Mali Karsanbhai Pitamberbhai Padhiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR230
Shelat, J.1. This Special Civil Application raises a question of some importance on the construction of Section 31 and Section 43D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. The petitioner is the owner of Survey No. 1244/1 admeasuring 9 acres and 13 gunthas situate within the limits of the Municipal Borough of Palanpur. At all material times, opponent No. 1 was cultivating this land as a, tenant. The petitioner's son is a surgeon. In 1956 he was practising as a surgeon in Baroda and was also working as a honorary surgeon in the Government Hospital at Baroda. He, however, wanted to settle down and start his practice as a surgeon in Palanpur, and for that reason he and his father, the petitioner, wanted to construct a private hospital in the land in question. The hospital building would have occupied a part of the land while the rest of the land was proposed to be utilised for agricultural purposes, viz., a garden attached to the hospital. On November 19, 1956, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!The Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom157; (1960)62BOMLR425; [1960(1)FLR63]; ILR1960Bom580
Naik, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari to quash the demand made by the Tahsiklar on 4-10-1958 for an amount of Rs. 17,199.5 nP. and also for a writ of certiorari and mandamus against the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 prohibiting them from taking steps against the petitioner for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner, the Nagpur Glass Works (Ltd.), Nagpur, is a public limited company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The Company has two departments, one department deals in the manufacture of Glassware and the other department deals in the manufacture of metals, such as, burners, lamps and lanterns. The first department is known as the Glass-ware Department and the second department is known as the Metal Department. The Company had started a private Provident Fund Scheme under the provisions of the Provident Funds ACT of 1925. This s...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1959
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ301Bom
Naik, J. 1. The is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari to quash the demand made by the tahsildar on 4 October 1958, for an amount of Rs. 17,199-5 nP. And also for a writ of certiorari and mandamus against respondents 1 to 5 prohibiting them from taking steps against the petitioner for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner, the Nagpur Glass Works, Ltd., Nagpur, is a public limited company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company has two departments : one department deals in the manufacture of glassware and the other department deals in the manufacture of metals, such as, burners, lamps and lanterns. The first department is known as the glassware department and the second department is known as the metal department. The company had started a private provident fund scheme under the provisions of the Provident Funds Act of 1925. This scheme i...
Tag this Judgment!Mathurabai and anr. Vs. Ramkrishna Bhaskar Barve and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom97; (1960)62BOMLR360; ILR1960Bom493
Raju, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the widow and son, who are legal representatives of the deceased Nilkanth who was original defendant No. 1, from the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Deo in Second Appeal No. 851 of 1955. The material facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as follows:2. A house belonging to the Deosthan of Prabhu. Dattatraya of Arvi was sold by two of the trustees of the Deosthan, namely, Nilkanth and Boliram (defendants 1 and 2) to the plaintiff Ramkrishna, for Rs. 2000/- on 12-3-1945. The plaintiff was put in possession of the house. On 23-2-1945 the two trustees purchased field No. 17/1 belonging to the plaintiff Ramkrishna, for Rs. 1800/- in 1947, Gangadhar, another trustee of the Deosthan, and one Chintaman, Pujari of the Deosthan, instituted Civil suit No. 8-A of 1947 for a declaration that the sale of the house of the Deosthan in favour of the plaintiff Ramkrishna was void, for possession of the house, and for damages. That suit was decreed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Rao Gajaram Vs. Trimbak Bapu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR422
Miabhoy, J. 1. In these two second, appeals, the only question, which arises for determination, is whether the Darkhast of appellant-decree-holder is barred by Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The facts, which give rise to these two second appeals are almost the same, the only difference in the two appeals being that they refer to different fields. In one appeal, the field involved is survey No. 56 and, in the other, the field involved is Survey No.19.2. In 1340 F., some persons executed sale-deeds in respect of these two survey numbers. The vendors are represented by respondents in these appeals and the vendee is the appellant. On Meher 4, 1340 F., Bapu, the predecessor-in-title of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and some others, filed two separate suits to get the sale-deeds cancelled. The trial Court passed preliminary decrees in both the suits. The decrees disallowed the prayer for cancellation of the sale-deeds, but, decreed that, within ten years, pl...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Rolling Mills Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. M.R. Meher and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1963Bom146; (1962)64BOMLR645; (1962)IILLJ667Bom
1. The question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether it is open to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to award lay-off compensation to workmen employed in an "industrial establishment" to which Section 25C of the Act does not apply.2. The two appellants are respectively a private limited company carrying on the business of a steel rolling mill and the Managing Director of that company. At alt material times the appellants employed on an average per working day less than fifty workmen. The workmen employed by the appellants raised an industrial dispute claiming that the appellants "shall give regular work of average 25 days in a month throughout the year or pay wages and allowances for the minimum of 25 days in a month with effect from 1556", and without prejudice to that demand they also made claim that "with effect from 1st April, 1956, in case regular work cannot be provided and if the workers are laid off or had to suffer involuntary u...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaji Batanji Vs. Manohar Chintaman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom169; (1960)62BOMLR322
Raju, J.1. This is a first appeal by Plaintiff Ramaji whose suit for a declaration of title to three houses Nos. 190, 580 and 582, New Shukrawari, Nagpur, for possession and for mesne profits was dismissed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The relevant lasts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:2. One Maroti son of Damaji died in 1920 leaving behind him his widow Sarubai and two daughters Jaibai and Vithabai. Plaintiff is the son of Jaibai. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the grandsons of Vithabai, their father Namdeo having predeceased them in 1943. Defendant No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit was represented by his widow Defendant No. 1 (c) and his two minor sons Defendants Nos. 1 (a) and 1(b). , Defendants Nos. 3 to 15 are tenants in occupation of the houses in dispute. It is common ground that Maroti who died in 1920 owned three houses bearing Nos. 190, 579 and 582. The suit relates to two of these houses namely Nos. 190 and 582 a...
Tag this Judgment!indulal K. Yagnik Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR206
Shelat, J.(1) This application under Art. 228 of the Constitution raises the question as to the validity of section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffectio n) Act beig Act No. XXII of 1922.(2) The petitioner is a memeber of the Loksabha having been elected from the constituency of the City of Ahmedabad and is also the President of the Maha Gujerat Janta Prishad. On the 15th of March 1959, he delivered a speech in a public meeting held under the auspices of the Maha Gujerat Janata Parishad at Gandh Chowk, Saraspur, Ahmedabad, in which he addressed certain remarks amongst other persons to the members of the police force. It is alleged that the speech was in contravention of Section 3 of the said Act.(3) The speech made by the petitioner and taken down by the police shorthand-writer runs as follows:'Someone (policemen) tells me to form an Union. I told him to form Seva Mandal. There is fund of the department (Police Welfare Fund). The children of policemen should be given education and...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Cycles Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (Excluding Clerical Staff)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ373Bom
AWARD1. This industrial dispute between the Hind Cycles, Ltd., Bombay, and the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay, representing majority of the workmen, was referred to me for adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, by his order No. AJH. 23/58, dated 7 May, 1958, under the powers delegated to him by the Government of Bombay by its notification, No, IDA. 3557, dated 8 May, 1957. The demand over which the dispute arose was as follows :- Schedule 'The following workmen should be reinstated immediately with full wages for the period of intervening period of unemployment till the date of reinstatement. They should be given continuity of service and all other benefits :- (1) Sri T. G. Nair. (2) Sri Maruti Pandurang. (3) Sri Vishram Gopal. (4) Sri Yeshwant Ganpat. (5) Sri Madan Maruti. (6) Sri Tukaram Shivram. (7) Sri Kashinath Bandu. (8) Sri Lahu Arjun. (9) Sri Pandurang Laxman. (10) Sri Sahadeo Ramji. (11) Sri Keshav Bapu. (12) Sri Vishram Balu. (13) Sri Shank...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala Vs. Ramprasad Dagduram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR222
Datar, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case and dealing with a point not material to this report, proceeded.] Then the second point raised by Mr. Gokhale was that the suit for foreclosure was misconceived when the transaction in suit evidenced only a usufructuary mortgage. It cannot be disputed that the present suit is a suit instituted only for foreclosure. The relief prayed for in the plaint is that if the mortgage amount is not paid as directed by the Court, the defendant should be ejected and plaintiff's possession confirmed and he be held entitled to apply for a final decree debarring the defendant from all rights to redeem the mortgaged property. It is also undisputed that an usufructuary mortgagee cannot institute a suit for foreclosure In view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act. But is the mortgage on which the suit is instituted an usufructuary mortgage as contended by Mr. Gokhale? We have been supplied with a copy of an offic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »