Mumbai Court April 1959 Judgments
Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Manufacturers Vs. State Industrial Court, Nagp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1312; (1959)IILLJ746Bom
Naik, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the State Industrial Court on 29 April 1958 and 8 October 1958, respectively. 2. The circumstances leading to this petition stated are as follows. Respondent 3 Shamrao Kawdoo made an application to the Additional District Magistrate who was empowered to act as Labour Commissioner, complaining that he was wrongfully dismissed from service by the petitioner. According to him, he was dismissed from service with effect from 19 July, 1956. The application was made under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. The petitioner contended that respondent 3 was not an employee in the factory, that he was working under one Shamrao Mahadeo and that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent 3. He further stated that he was prepared to re-employ respondent 3 pr...
Tag this Judgment!Shirur Municipality Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ417Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10 and 10(1)AWARD 1. This industrial dispute has been referred to me under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour and Social Welfare Department Order No. A.J.C. 24(2) of 1958 dated 31 July 1958. The demands of the workmen will be reproduced in due course. 2. To the statement of claim of the workmen the municipality filed its written statement on 1 November 1958. Then on 16 February, 1959 the municipality sought permission to file an additional written statement. The permission having been granted, an additional written statement was filed on the same day. There a preliminary objection has been raised by the municipality to the maintainability of the reference. This is how the objection is worded :- 'In view of the recent decisions, e.g., Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. N. J. Mujumdar, 1958 I L.L.J. 761 the employer-municipality takes a preliminary objection that the Industrial Disputes Act is not appl...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Rangildas Shah Vs. Swastik Bharat Kala Kendra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1356
ORDER(1) This is an application for revision of the order of Mr. H. K. Karmarkar, Judge Small Cause Court, Nagpur, in civil suit No. 1673 of 1959 releasing from attachment two embroidery machines which were attached by the applicant before judgment under O. 38 R. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The applicant instituted a suit against the opponents for the recovery of Rs. 1,200/- alleged to be due on foot of accounts. The applicant alleges that opponent No. 1 is a partnership firm and opponents 2 to 5 are members of that firm. On 28-2-1959, the applicant made an application under O. 38, R. 5 of the Code for attachment before judgment of two embroidery machines which according to him are the property of the firm. The ground on which the application was made was that these machines, though they belonged to the firm, were removed by opponent No. 4 from the premises of the firm to his own house and that the other property of the firm had been conceale...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay Vs. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1033
(1) The question raised by Mr. Laud is oneof importance under the Evidence Act. Mr. Laud urged that the judgment in L. A. Reference Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1949 decided by Mr. Justice Tendolkar on 6th July 1953 relating to plots Nos. 66 and 69 situate near the land concerned in this Reference is admissible as evidence to establish (I) the value of those plots (ii) to regard those plots as Instances and to deduce from the value thereof as determined by Mr. Justice Tendolkar the market value of the plot in question. The learned Advocate General has objected to the judgment being admitted as evidence on the ground that it is not relevant under any of the provisions of the Evidence Act. The question has been argued at considerable length and it being one on which there is hardly any reported precedent, both sides have requested me to give reasons for my decision.(2) Now the parties concerned in those References were different except that one side in all these References is always the Land Acqui...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vatsalabai Ramchandra Patil Vs. Togya Megha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1351
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will also govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 95 to 107 of 1058.2. The petitioners in all these petitions claim to be the owners of certain lands which are in possession of the tenants who are respondents in these petitions. These lands are situate in the village Umri which was leased out to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners under the Berar 'Waste Land Rules, 1865. The petitioners have alleged in their petitions that they were proprietors of Umri till the abolition of their proprietary rights by virtue of the provisions of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Bights Act, 1950. This fact is not denied by the respondents tenants.3. A lessee under the Waste Land Rules was deemed to be an 'alienee' of the Government and the village to be 'alienated' to him by the Government. Under Rule 1 of these Rules such an alienee is liable to pay annual rent to the Government at a rate to be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. Under Rule 5, a lessee is entitled, ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Chinubhai Haridas Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1309
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach, acquitting the accused who were tried before him in Criminal Case No. 3148 of 1955 for offences under Section 304A and under Section 304A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. In the town of Broach there is a factory known as the Gopal Mills which manufactures cotton textiles. Accused No. 1 is the occupier of that mill, accused No. 2 is the manager of that mill, accused No. 3 was in charge as manager on July 4, 1955-the date of the offence-and accused No. 4 is an engineer of the mill. In the factory a purification plant is installed. On July 4, 1955, a valve pit in the purification plant stopped functioning, and one Fakirji who was attending to the plant asked one Melia Dadla, a labourer, to enter the pit for opening the valve. Melia Dadla who entered the pit with a crow-bar was overpowered by poisonous fumes and became unconscious. Fakirji, finding that Melia Dadla had be...
Tag this Judgment!Francis D'Souza Vs. Edward A.L. Gameiro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1180; 1960CriLJ459
(After stating the facts and holding that the conviction of the petitioner under S. 341, I. P. C. was justified, his Lordship proceeded.) Mr. Neemachwala then argued that the learned Presidency Magistrate erred in law in passing an order under S. 522, Criminal ProcedureCode, for the restoration of possession of the premises to the complainant. In order to appreciate the arguments of Mr. Neemchawala the terms of S. 522 (1) may be set out :'Whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immoveable property, the Court may, if it thinks fir, when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction order the person dispossessed to be restored to be the possession of the same'.It will be seen that two conditions are required to be fulfilled in order that possess...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Yeshwant Nene Vs. Rajaram Balkrishna Raut and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom21; (1959)61BOMLR1274; ILR1960Bom218
Shah, J.1. An election was held in the Parliamentary Constituency for Meeting a representative from the Kolaba District. One Rajaram Balkrishan Rant was declared elected by the Election Commissioner. Thereafter. one Narayan Yeshwant None (whom we shall hereafter refer to as 'Nene') applied to set aside the election on the ground that Rajaram Balkrishna Raut had been guilty of corrupt practices which had vitiated the election. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal constituted under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Against the order passed by that Tribunal, an appeal was preferred to this Couer under Section 116A of the Act. That appeal teas placed for hearing before Mr. Justice S. T. Desai and Mr. Justice Miabhoy on 17-6-1958. It appears Irons the judgment recorded that alter arguments were heard by the Court on the merits of the dispute, a suggestion was thrown out by the Court that the petition for setting aside the election he abandoned in the larger interest of t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dhanraj Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1291; 1960CriLJ1321
Shah, J.(1) These are four companion appeals which raise for determination common question common questions. We propose to deal with appeal No. 1225 of 1958, and the reasons set out for the decisions in this Appeal will govern the other three appeals.(2) Before the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, the Dhanraj Mills Ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as the Company and its three officers were charged with contravention of Clayse (3) (c) of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, read with Government Notification No. SRO-509, dated 27th April 1951, and hereby committing offences punishable under sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (24 of 1946). During the pendency of the proceedings the fourth accused, Meherji M. Pastakia, who was the manager of the company died on 21st March 1958 and his name was struck off. The learned Magistrae acquitted the remaining three accused, and against the orde of acquittal, this appeal has been prefe...
Tag this Judgment!John Servage Philip Vs. City of Nagpur Corporation Through Its Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Bom458; (1959)61BOMLR1299; ILR1959Bom1730
Mudholkar, J.1. The City of Nagpur Corporation passed a resolution at a meeting held on 18-3-1959, accepting an invitation received from the Secretary of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, London, requesting it to send delegates at the Health Conference to be held at Harrogate, Yorkshire, from 27th April till 1-5-1959. The Corporation decided to send the following four persons as delegates to that Conference: (1) Shri Madan Gopal Agrawal, Councillor, (2) Shri O.V. Deshmukh, Councillor, (3) Dr. D.W. Durgakar, Councillor, (4) Shri D.J. Madan, Municipal Commissioner. Apparently the Corporation was not quite sure whether it could send delegates to that Conference at its expense. It therefore addressed a letter to the State Government, requesting it to grant sanction for the expenditure which will have to be incurred for sending the aforesaid delegates to the Conference. On 4-4-1959 the Government sent a reply to the Corporation in which, amongst other things, it was stated that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »