Mumbai Court November 1959 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.
Khimji Poojnja and Co. Vs. N. Ramanlal and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR277
Gokhale, J.(Paras 1 to 7 omitted.)(8) The principal point of controversy which has been agitated at considerble length in these appeals is whether S. 8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 (LXIV of 1947), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Bombay Act', has been rendered inoperative by virtue of a notification issued by the Textile commissioner on 16-7-1953 under the provisions of the central Cotton Order, 1950, which order itself was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Legislature by the Essential Supplies (Temporay Powers) Act , 1946 (XXIV of 1946), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Essential Supplies Act'. As we have already indicated. the other law point which was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs in these suits was wherther the Bombay Act was also redered inopertative by virtue of the notification applying s. 15 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952). That notification was issued on 30-7-1954, that is to s...
Yeshwantrao Govindrao Vs. the Collector, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom129; (1960)62BOMLR204; ILR1960Bom302
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act by the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur.2. Admittedly, 27,66 acres out of khasra Nos. 62, 63, 68, 69 and 72 in Manewada village belonging to the appellant Yeshwantrao had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by a notification dated 9-6-48, The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 550/-per aero, but not being satisfied with this amount the appellant made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the District Court. In his award the First Additional District Judge. Nagpur, confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer with a slight modification. In the present appeal it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge erred in confirming Rs. 550/- per acre as the valuation of the land. This is the only point urged in appeal, but various grounds were urged in support of tin's contention.3. It is urge...
Pandurang Ganpatrao Welekar Vs. Nurumiya Serumiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR547
Kotval, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs in a mortgage suit. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are the mortgagors, have not put in appearance. Respondent No. 3 is the then State of Madhya Pradesh, but it is now not in dispute that the liability is that of the State of Bombay under the provisions of Section 91 of the States Reorganization Act.2. The plaintiffs sued upon a mortgage executed on May 10, 1944, by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The mortgage was for a consideration of Rs. 4,000, repayable in four yearly instalments of Rs. 1,000 each. The mortgage stipulated for interest at 1 per cent, per month, compound. The property which was comprised in the mortgage consisted of three fields, khasra No. 28, area 3.59 acres and khasra No. 41, area 2.52 acres, of mouza Poth Budhwar, tahsil Katol, district Nagpur, and khasra No. 313, area 5.12 acres of mouza Katol, tahsil Katol, district Nagpur.3. The principal dispute in this appeal is not between the appellants-mortgagees an...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (Fire Brigade Service) Vs. Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ397Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(3) and 39AWARD1. This industrial dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Workmen employed under it in its Fire Brigade. Service was referred to Sri M. R. Meher, as industrial tribunal, under Sub-section (3) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, empowered under S. 39 of the said Act as per order No. AJM. 29 of 1958, dated 5 July, 1958, and later transferred to me as per Government's order, Labour and Social Welfare Department, No. AJB. 7158-H, dated 20 May, 1959. The dispute relates to working hours and overtime wages, pay-scales, etc. 2. The demands in this reference relate to members of the Fire Brigade Service. Chapter XIV of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act provides for the maintenance of the Municipal Fire Brigade and S. 359(1) contained in the said chapter reads as follows : 'With a view to the discharg...
Gopal Mayaji Prab and anr. Vs. T.C. Seth and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR486
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order dated April 20th, 1959 whereunder the respondent No. 1 inter alia directed the petitioner No. 1 to pay penalty of Rs. 10.000/- and petitioner No. 2 to pay penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act.(2) Though there are several allegations in the petition at the trial the petitioner has proceeded on the footing that he admits the correctness of findings as to facts as mentioned in the impugned decision. those facts are as follows:(3) Prior to April 10, 1958 one Shankarlal was in possession of two slabs f gold which were smuggled into India. It was arranged on behalf of Shankarlal that these to slabs of gold wshould be melted at the shop of the 1st petitioner who carries on business of running a metal melting workshop near Mumbadevi Post Office at Bombay. It was arranged that the 1st petitioner should send his employee to take de...
Gopal Mayaji Parab and anr. Vs. T.C. Seth and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1959
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1422
ORDERK.K. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order dated April 20th, 1959 whereunder the respondent No. 1 inter alia directed the petitioner No. 1 to pay penalty of Rs. 10,000/ and petitioner No, 2 to pay penalty of Rs. 1,000/ under the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act.2. Though there are several allegations in the petition at the trial the petitioner has proceeded on the footing that he admits the correctness of findings as to facts as mentioned in the impugned decision. Those facts are as follows:3. Prior to April 10, 1958 one Shankarlal was in possession of two slabs of gold which were smuggled into India. It was arranged on behalf of Shankarlal that those two slabs of gold should be melted at the shop of the 1st petitioner who carries on business of running a metal melting workshop near Mumbadevi Post Office at Bombay. It was arranged that the 1st petitioner should send his employee ...
Buvasaheb Tatyasaheb Mathakari Vs. Yesu Krishna Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR219
Shelat, J. 1. This Special Civil Application raises a point of interest on the construction of Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. The land in dispute is survey No. 43 situated in the village Kameri in Walwa taluka and which was at all material times leased out to opponent No. 1 and was cultivated by him as a tenant. The petitioner contended that the land was his private personal property held in personal Inam. On March 26, 1953, he, therefore, served opponent No. 1 with a notice terminating his tenancy. On June 4, 1954, he filed the present application under Section 34 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricutural Lands Act, 1948, as it stood then, on the ground that the land was bona fide required by him for personal cultivation. Opponent No. 1, while admitting that he had taken the lease from the petitioner, contended that the land was Devasthan Inam land held by a shrine known as Shri Shambhu Appa Dev. The Mamlatdar, however, allowed th...
Bai Bai Vs. Mahadu Maruti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR341
(1) This is a second appeal by defendant No. 1. The property in dispute in the suit from which this appeal arises orignially belonged to one Ganoji, who died in 1345F, leaving behind him two widows named Santabai and Bai bai. Plaintiff alleged that he was adopted by Santabai in 1348F in pursuance of the permssion given to her by her husband, and that a registered deed of adoption, dated 10-8-1348F, was executed by her. He alleged that he was brought up by Santabai; that Santabi died about 3 years before he instituted the suit, and, subsequently, he was driven away by her co-widow and his step- mother Baibai. Plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the adopted son of Ganoji and claimed possession on that basis. Defendant No. 1 was Baibai. There were two other defendants. They were joined on th ground that they were cultiviators and in actual possession of the suit lands. Ultimately, it was decided that these two defendants were unnecessary parties. The main contest was between plain...
State of Bombay Vs. V.M. Jawadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR183
S.T. Desai, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, and the Reference arises out of two prosecutions launched against one Jawadekar who runs a sweetmeat shop under the name 'Satari Pedha Shop' on the Sitabuldi Main Road in the city of Nagpur. In Criminal Case No. 1144 of 1958, the prosecution alleged that the Inspector of Shops and Establishments, Nagpur, visited. the shop of the accused on December 30, 1956, at 10 a.m. and found the accused selling sweetmeats to a number of customers with the help of his employee Govinda. December 30, 1956, was a weekly close day. In Criminal Case No. 1144-A of 1958, the prosecution alleged that the Inspector of Shops and Establishments, Nagpur, found the accused carrying on the business of his shop with the help of his two employees, Govinda and Feru, on December 9, 1956, which was a weekly close day. The accused was charged under the provisions of Sections 9(7) and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›