Mumbai Court February 1959 Judgments
V.M. Dorlikar Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Nagpur Corporation and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1106; (1959)IILLJ599Bom
Datar, J.(1) The appellant before us was originally a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee of Nagpur. A departmental enquiry was started against him and on the 12th of December 1949 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was guilty of the charges for which the enquiry had been started but recommended that as there were extenuating circumstances, only a warning be given to the appellant by way of punishment. the officer in charge of the Municipal Committee, however, took a different view on the question of punishment to be awarded. To the appellant and accordingly passed an order services. It was necessary under the rules that this order of the Officer in Charge had to be approved of by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue also approved of this order and the same was communicated to the appellant on the 27th of April 1951.(2) The appellant thereafter approached this Court by a special application under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Manahem S. Yeshoova Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1388
(1) This is a suit filed for challenging the validity of certain orders passed under the provisions of the foreign exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs act and for recovering baci 310 tolas of gold confiscated in accordance with these orders. The plaintiff also seeks to recover in the alternative the value of gold viz., Rs. 30,790/- and interest at the rate of 6 per cent p.a. The plaintiffs case is as follws: (2) The plaintiff was proceeding from Aden to Colombo and S. S. City of Durham by which the plaintiff was travelling arrived at Bombay on 30-11-1950 On that date the plaintiff for the purpose of visiting the city of Bombay was passing through the Blue Gate of the Alexandra Docks and was questioned by officer of customs. The plaintiff informed the officer that he was carrying gold which was in his cabin. The plaintiff produced gold wighing 310 tolas in his cabin and the same was seized. Ultimate by the impugned order dated 29-12-1950 one M.E. Rahaman the then collector of cu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Mathuradas Bulakidas Mohota
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1102
Mudholkar, J.1. Four points were urged on behalf of the petitioner before me. The first point was that the land has not been diverted by him to non-agricultural purposes, and in support of this contention he placed reliance upon the definitions of 'agriculture' and 'improvements' contained in the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920. According to him, though this Act was passed subsequent to the Land Revenue Act, the definitions given therein should guide the Court in interpreting the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. The second point taken was that the rules under which the provision has been made do not apply to the field in question inasmuch as it was not Malik Makbuza land at the time of the last settlement. The third point was that Rule 3 of the rules framed under Section 106(5) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act with Section 104-A is ultra vires to the extent to which it conflicts with the provisions of Section 104-A. Finally it was said that there was no legal basis for assessing the land at 2 an...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kayum Mahomed HooseIn Pitalvala Vs. Ebrahim Abbasbhai Harianival ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1223
Gokhale, J. (1) This is an appeal by the original defendant against a decree passed in respondent's favour by the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No. 1106 of 1956. The suit came to be filed in the following circumstances:(2) The premises in the suit consist of a room on the first floor of Bandukwalla Bungalow situated at First Hasnabad lane, Santa Cruz. The present appellant was the tenant of the suit room as well as a room on the ground floor of the same building. According to the plaintiff in April 1945 the room in suit was was sublet to him by the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- and a further amount of Rs. 3/- was payable for electric charges, and it is the plaintiff's case that he was in exclusive possession and occupation of the said room and used to pay to the defendant the said room and used to pay to the defendant the amount of Rs. 18/- per month inclusive of rent and electric charges upto October 1950, but the defendant did not pass any receipts in his favour in respec...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Davalbhai Naranbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1247
Miabhoy, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded]. The main point, which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether acquisition of the suit land was bad on the ground that it was included in the Draft Town Planning Scheme. The submission of Mr. Gupte, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, was that once a land was included in a draft scheme, the power of acquiring it under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was lost to the State Government. His second submission was that though, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government had power to acquire land needed for a public purpose, before such land could be acquired, the land must be capable of being so acquired. He argued that, if on account of the existence of another law, a land was rendered incapable of acquisition, then, the power of the acquiring authority to acquire the land was lost. He contended that the Town Planning Act of 19.15 contained a number of provisions which showed that once land became...
Tag this Judgment!Sastri Yagnapurushdasji Vs. Muldas Bhuradas Vaishya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1016
Gokhale, J.1. This is an application by original plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in State of Bombay v. Shastri Yagna Purushadasji (1958) 61 Bom. L.R. 700, dismissing the petitioner's suit. The suit was filed for a declaration inter alia that the Swaminarayan Temple of Shree Nar Narayan Dev at Ahmedabad and all the temples subordinate thereto were not temples within the meaning of the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (Bom. Act XXXV of 1947) as amended by Bombay Act LXXVII of 1948, and to restrain defendant No. 1 and other non-Satsangi Harijans from entering the said temples. The trial Court had granted the said declaration and injunction, and against that decision the State of Bombay as well as original defendant No. 1 had filed First Appeal No. 107 of 1952. When the appeal was heard by this Court on March 8, 1957, the appeal, so far as it was filed by the State of Bombay, came to be dismissed, and by a furth...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdayal Ayodhyaprasad Gupta Vs. K.R. Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1210
Tambe, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1951) by one Ramdayal Ayodhyaprasad Gupta, a defeated candidate at the election held on January 24, 1958, for electing five members to the Legislative Council of the State of Bombay from the Vidarbha Local Authorities' Constituency.' The questions raised in this appeal relate to the scope and ambit of expressions 'Municipality' and 'Janapada Sabha (Rural Circle)' appearing in the Fourth Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1950).2. Article 171 of the Constitution relates to the composition of the Legislative Council. It provides that the Legislative Council of a State shall consist of members elected from certain electorates referred to in Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause (3) of this article and of certain nominated members as provided in Sub-clause (e) of the said Clause (3). We are here concerned with t...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal (Manibhai) Gopalji Desai Vs. the Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR976
Mudholkar, J.(1) The petitioner is an advocate of this High Court. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, and respondent No. 2 is the Bar Council of this High Court. Upon the Petition made by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution, Mr. Justice K. K. Desai issued a rule on 4-11-1958 against the respondents to show cause why the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 4 of the Indian Bar Councils Act (Act XXXVIII of 1926) and also all the resolutions and rules made thereunder or in conformity therewith should not be declared illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution, and further why an appropriate writ or order or direction should not issue against the respondents or any of them restraining them from holding any elections on the basis of the reservation of seats as contemplated by sub-s. (3) of S. 4.(2) It is common knowledge that as a step towards establishing an autonomous bar, the Indian Bar Councils Act was enacted in the year 1926, and Bar Councils were established for cert...
Tag this Judgment!Vyra Municipality Vs. Fulchand Ganpatlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR973
Shah, J (1) This is an appeal by the Municipality of Vyara under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Vyara, District Surat. At the instance of the Vyara Municipality the respondent Fulchand was tried before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara, for an offence under section 96(5) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused and against the order of acquitted the accused and against the order of acquital the Vyara Municipality has obtained special leave to appeal to this court.(2) The facts which give rise to the complaint are briefly these. The respondent is the owner of a building No. 1657 in the town of Vyara. He desired to repair the building and to construct a Kitchen. A bath room and a lavatory at the rear of the building. He, therefore submitted an application to the Municipality of Vyara for permission to carry out the repairs and to put up the p...
Tag this Judgment!Vyara Municipality Vs. Fulchand Ganpatlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1959
Reported in: 1960CriLJ322
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipality of Vyara Under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure -against an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara, District Surat. At the instance of the Vyara Municipality, the respondent Fulchand was tried before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara, for an offence Under Section 96(5) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused and against the order of acquittal the Vyara Municipality has obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.2. The facts which give rise to the complaint are briefly these. The respondent is the owner of a building No. 1.657 in the town of Vyara. He desired to repair the building and to construct a kitchen, a bath room and a lavatory at the; rear of the building. He, therefore, submitted an application to the Municipality of Vyara for permission to cany out the repairs and to put up the proposed construction. With the application t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »