Mumbai Court February 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.
Umer Saheb Bura Saheb Inamdar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1001
SHAH, J.(1) After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded)- It is urded that the second head of the charge Infringed the express provision contained in the proviso to section 222(2) of the code of criminal Procedure, and on that account hte trial held be force the Court of sessionwas illegal.Originally the harge related to a period between 6th March 1949 and 31st March 1951. It appears that the attention of the learned trail Judgewas invited on 2nd June 1958 to the fact that afetr June 1950 no advacen was made to the fourth accused or to his firm and, therefore,the charge sould have been restricted to a period between 6th March 1949 and 30th June 1950. The learned Juge then amended the charge by striking out the figure'30-6-1050' in the second head 0of the chargeand procedded with the trial. It appears that by that time a large number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution.,but no objection was raised on behalf of the accused to the amendment of the charge because it was in su...
Jaswantlal Jagjivandas and Co. Vs. Western Company, India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1087
V.S. Desai, J.1. The respondents are a company incorporated in the State of Delaware in the United States of America and have a place of business in Bombay at Metro House, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay 1. The respondents were the tenants of a godown situate at 51, Dockyard Road, Mazgaon, Bombay. On December 1, 1955, the respondents purported to create a sub-tenancy in favour of the appellants in respect of the eastern portion of the godown at 51, Dockyard Road, on certain terms and conditions as set out in the letter which they wrote to the appellants on December 1, 1955. In respect of the goods stored in the godown there was an insurance effected by the respondents and they were paying certain insurance premium. It appears that as a result of the use made by the appellants of the portion sub-let to them the insurance premium which the respondents had to pay was increased. Therefore, on January 5, 1956, the respondents asked the appellants to remove storing of rice bags and also stop-pol...
Sk. Rahiman Vs. Raje Nilkanthrao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1203
Chainani, C.J. (1) The order of reference to the full Bench does not frmulate the question, which we have to decide. In consultation with the learned counsel on both sides, the question has been formulated as follows:Whether the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 73 of the Berar Land Revenue Code applies in cases in which the commencement of tenancy is known.(2) In order to appreciate the arguments, which have been advanced before us, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Code. sub-section (1) of S. 73, as it originally stood, was as follows:Where by reason of the antiquity of a tenancy in n alienated village or holding no satisfactory evidence of its commencement and of its period is forthcoming and there is no usage of the locality as to such period, the period shall, as against the landlord of the tenant, be presumed to be co extensive with the duration of the tenure of such landlord and those who derive little under him.Such tenant is called a tenant of antiquity...
B.E.S.T. Workers' Union Vs. State of Bombay and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR967; (1959)IILLJ493Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Shelat dismissing summarily the appellant's petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts which have led up to this appeal are briefly as follows. The petitioner is a registered union of workers of the B.E.S.T. undertaking, and was registered as a representative union by the Registrar of Unions under S. 13(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The union was for the local area of the city of Bombay. That area was altered by a notification of the Government dated 16 April, 1958. Now, by reason of the alteration of the local area, it became necessary for the appellant union to make a fresh application for registration as a representative union under S. 13(1) of the Act. It made such an application on 30 October 1958. 3. Prior to this application, respondent 3, which is also a trade union of employees employed in the same industry as the members of the appellant union, had ...
Oriental Metal Pressing Works (Private) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bhaskar Kash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1045
S.T. Desai, J.(1) This appeal raises an important question of construction of S. 312 of the new Companies Act which section now imposes total prohibition against, any assignment of his office by a Director. The prohibition applies in case of both a public and a private limited company. The facts are not in dispute nor disputable. The first appellant (original first defendant) is a private limited company incorporated on 21 -5- 1955. Prior to that Dadoba kashinath Thakoor was the sole proprietor of a business of metal pressing works which he carried on in the firm name of Oriental Metal Pressing Works. The first appellant company acquired that business as a going concern. The agreement dated 7-7-1955 between Dadoba and the Compan y states that Dadoba was appointed Managing Director of the company and was entitled to hold that office for life, Clause 7 of that agreement is as under:' Mr. Thakoor shall be entitleld by deed inter vivos or by will or codicil to appoint any person to be a Ma...
Ramsing Ratansing Pardeshi Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR964
Patel, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] It has been argued by Mr. Gokhale appearing for the petitioners in all these cases that Section 10(f) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is widely worded and that, when it says.a person shall be disqualified for being elected and for being a councillor if such person-.has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the Corporation;it means that his close relationship with an employee amounts to interest-may be indirect-in the employment of the Corporation and that construction is strengthened when one has regard to the words 'directly or indirectly'; he says further that this provision is made for the purpose of maintaining purity of Municipal administration and that could only be done if a person is disqualified on the ground of very close and near relationship. Now this question has come before this Court in the past...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›