Mumbai Court April 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.
Gajanan Krishnarao Chawandke Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1402
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner is a primary school teacher serving with the Municipal Committee, Khamgaon. He joined service on January 18, 1932, and was eventually confirmed. There are six posts in the Select Grade which are open to primary school teachers serving with the Municipal Committee. The question of filling those posts came before the Municipal Committee on April 17, 1953. On that date they called for recommendations from the Education Sub-Committee. That Sub-Committee sent up the names of six teachers. Apparently, the recommendations of the Sub-Committee did not find favour with the General Committee and, therefore, the General Committee referred the matter to the Education Sub-Committee for fresh recommendations. The petitioner's name was originally recommended by the Sub-Committee, but on the second occasion it was not recommended. On March 19, 1953, the Municipal Committee considered the entire question at its general meeting and resolved to appoint the following sis per...
Bhawandas Motiram Marwari Vs. the Bombay Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1406
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur, transferring an appeal preferred by the petitioner and pending before it to the Commissioner, Nagpur, for disposal. According to the Tribunal, by virtue of Section 8 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act (Act VIII of 1958) an appeal of this kind has to be transferred to the Commissioner for disposal. The appeal in question arose out of an order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer upon an application made by respondent No. 4 under Section 19 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.2. In coming to the conclusion that the appeal has to be transferred to the Commissioner, the Revenue Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Vishweshar Rao v. State of Bombay [1958] N.L.J. 505. Section 8 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act runs thus:-All proceedings including proceedings by way of app...
Ramchandra Yeshwant Shringarpure Vs. Digambar Tejiram Pardeshiu and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1665
Chainani, C.J.(1) 'Whether an order for set-off passed under Order XXI, Rule 72, can be called upon to pay in Court the amount of set off so as to make it available for rateable distribution amogst all holders of decrees against the same judgment debtor under the provisions of S. 73 of the Code . In consultation with the learned Advocate for all the parties, we have, therefore, reformulated the question for our decision as under:'Whether by reason of sub-sec, (2) of S. 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a set-off allowed by a Court under order XXI, Rule 72 dto a decreeholder who has purchased the property of his judgment -debtor, can affect the right under S. 73 ti rateable distribution of the purchase money of another decree-holder, who had applied for execution of his decree to another Court and had got the same property attached before the date of its sale?' (2) The provisions with regard to rateable ditribution are contained in S. 73. Sub Section (1) of this section provides that, ...
Loku Basappa Pujari and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1271
Shah, J.(1) (In an appeal against conviction and sentence in a murder trial after stating facts and discussing evidence and holding that the evidence did not justify conviction His Lordship proceeded.)Before parting with the case we think it necessary to deal with certain matters of practice which call for observations. we fid that the notes of the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Narayan have not been taken on the record, though the medical officer who performed the post-mortem examination was examination was examined as a witness. We have noticed in appeals coming from orders passed by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay that in very rare cases the notes of the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the victims are tendered and admitted in evidence, whereas in appeals from the Sessions Divisions in the mofussil, the notes of post-mortem examination, whenever a post-mortem has been held on a ded body, are invariably tendered and admitted in evidence. That thesenote...
Desaibhai Kashibhai Desai Vs. S.M. Dudani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1326
Tambe, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one Desaibhai Kashibhai Desai, an elected councillor of the Nadiad Borough Municipality, challenges the election of Chimanbhai Kashibhai Patel, opponent No. 3 hereto, to the office of the President of the Municipality held on March 23, 1959.2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are, Chimanbhai was a duly elected President during the year 1958-59. His term of office expired on March 9, 1959. Section 19A read together with Section 23(2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (hereinafter called the Act) cast a duty on the Collector to call a meeting for the election of the President. The Collector, Kaira District, (opponent No. 1), accordingly called a meeting of the councilors of the Municipality for March 23, 1959, for electing a President of the Nadiad Borough Municipality, and he further directed the District Deputy Collector, opponent No. 2 hereto, to preside over the meeting. Fro...
Sadashiv Tatoba Gatade Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1176; 1960CriLJ803
Chainani, C.J.(1) The question referred to the Full Bench is 'whether the expression 'butter' within the meaing of rule A. 11.05 in the Rules framed under S, 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act includes butter prepared from curd?' In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act was enacted in 1954 in order to make provision for the prevention of food adulteration. Clause (1) in S. 2 of the Act defines the term 'adulterated'. This clause contrains sub-clauses (a) to (1) , which lay down the different circumstances in which an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. For instance, under sub-clause (a) an article of food is to be deemed to be adulterated if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser andis to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. Under sub-clause (1), with which w...
Sri Mahaluxmi Wollen Mills (Private) Ltd., Bombay Vs. Rashtriya Mill M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ426Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Judge, First Labour Court, Bombay, directing the appellant mill company to pay to its employees compensation for closure in accordance with the provisions of S. 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts of the case are as follows : The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, the representative union for the cotton textile industry in Bombay, made an application to the labour court on 26 December, 1956 in which it stated that the appellant mill company had put up a notice dated 1 December, 1956, informing its employees that due to heavy losses sustained and the serious financial inability to run the mill, the directors had decided to close down the business of the mill at the end of December as a permanent measure and the employees would be discharged accordingly from the end of December 1956. The mill was, in fact, closed from the end of December 1956. The union alleged that it was not true that the concern had to be closed on ...
Janata Spinning Mills (Private) Ltd., Sangli Vs. Miraj Taluka Girni Ka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ431Bom
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against an order of Sri Dingare, Judge of the Second Labour Court at Bombay, dated 28 November, 1958, allowing the application of the respondent union against the employer-mills for withdrawal of the illegal change it is alleged to have made in reducing the dearness allowance of workers from Rs. 1-40-0 per day to Rs. 1.37 nP. 2. The facts which gave rise to this appeal are briefly as follows. An application was filed by the union against the appellant mill stating that under a settlement dated 17 December, 1956 the parties agreed that the workers in this mill will be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 91.66 per cent of the Sholapur rate. The Sholapur rate of dearness allowance was fixed by the industrial court in References Nos. 10 and 11 of 1946 at 66-2/3 per cent neutralization and the court found that on arithmetical calculation the rate awarded comes to 1.75 pies per days per rate awarded comes to 1.75 pies per day per rise of each point in the c...
Waman Ganesh Joshi Vs. Ganu Guna Khapre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1267
Datar, J.1. Survey No. 60 and Hissa No. 1 of survey No. 31 situate at Mouje Rai, originally belonged to one person, whose name does not appear in the record, but, who, in some execution proceedings, was the judgment-debtor. It appears that the judgment-debtor had leased the two survey numbers to opponent No. 1. In execution of a decree obtained against the judgment-debtor the two survey numbers were put up for sale and were purchased by the present petitioner in court auction on November 28, 1955. As the opponent-tenant was on the lands at the time of court auction, symbolical possession was delivered to the auction purchaser on June 15, 1956, under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 96, Civil Procedure Code.2. On December 13, 1956, the petitioner gave a notice to opponent No. 1 for terminating his tenancy under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, on the ground that he required the lands for his own personal cultivation. On M...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishoresinh Kalyansinh Solanki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR680
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference taken out at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, raises a question of construction of a provision hi Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessment year is 1954-55 and the assessment for that year was made on the assessee in the status of a registered firm on August 31, 1954. The Commissioner of Income-tax was of the opinion that the order granting registration to the firm and the order of assessment made thereafter were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and he, therefore, took action under Section 33B(7) and on July 5, 1956, revised the order of the Income-tax Officer holding as under:There being grave doubts about the genuineness of the firm it was wrong on the part of the Income-tax Officer to have passed an order under Section 26A registering the firm and dividing the profits in the name of the alleged partners. Both the orders of the Income-tax Officer, namely the assessment order as well as the order grant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »