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.
Bombay Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Ramachandra Laxman Bloasay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1129
Chainani, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the order passed by Mr. Justice K.T. Desai by which by directed the issue of a writ to appellant No. 1, the Bombay Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the corporation requiring the corporation to forebear from discussing a resolution, in regard to Mr. Imre Nagy and is associates, of which a notice had been given by a councilor of the corporation. Dr. R. N. Kulkarni. The resolution was in the following terms:That the Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay have learnt with deep regret about the execution of Mr. Imre Nagy, a former Prime Minister doctrine of Panchasila enunciated by our country and accepted by other countries of the world. The corporation hereby express their horror at the execution under peculiar conditions of those fighters for freedom of their motherland who, by displaying great courage and steadfastness even at the cost of their lives in the cause of their country freedom have upheld the dignity of man and ren...
Ramdas Kikabhai Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1178; 1960CriLJ327
Chainani, C.J.(1) (After stating the facts and discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded :)Then there is the statement of the accused made before, the Committing Magistrate. In this Statement, he has stated that, on that night, he had asked Kavita to sleep inside his house, that she refused to do so and that she told him that she would not stay with him and that on the following morning she would send for panchas and take a divorce. She then slept outside in the Pejari. He woke up in the morning and as he was angry with her, he took up a stone and gave two or three blows with it to her and killed her. In this statement, therefore the accused has admitted that he had killed kavita. Before recording this statement of the accused, the Committing Magistrate had not recorded any evidence. It has, therefore, been urged that this statement made before the Committing Magistrate is not admissible in evidence. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the relevant provisions of Section 207-A...
India United Mills Ltd., Bombay Vs. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ120Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Judge, First Labour Court, Bombay. The Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, which is the representative upon for the cotton textile industry in Greater Bombay, made an application to the labour court in which it stated that Arjun Ramchandra, an employee in the winding department of the appellant mill company, was discharged on 13 November, 1957, giving him thirteen days' wages in lieu of notice. No reason was given in the discharge order, but reference was made to an inquiry made on 12 November, 1957. The inquiry was in connexion with the employee's absence on 6 November, 1957 when he had intimated by telephone to one Dongre to mark him on leave. The sangh contended that the discharge order was illegal and improper. The company by its written statement replied that the employee was discharged with thirteen days' wages in lieu of notice on 13 November, 1957 for the misconduct of absenting from work without permission, for which misconduct a ...
Ramchandra Vishwanath Muthal Vs. Municipal Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1288
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner is an assistant teacher serving in the municipal Primary School of the Municipal Committee, Katol. According to him, he was appointed to the school about 24 or 25 years ago. On March 18, 1958, the head master of the school, Mr. Pawar, made a report to the Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Katol, to the effect that the petitioner, who used to hold the classes from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. in the morning, had refused to attend office work from 2.30 p.m. onwards. He also stated that when he inspected the class of the petitioner on March 13, 1958, he did not find his work satisfactory. The general complaint against the petitioner was that the petitioner was not observing the discipline of the school and this had an adverse effect on other teachers also. Thereupon the following notice dated March 22, 1958, was served on the petitioner which runs thus:-You are hereby informed that you are not attending the office work in the noon in spite of the orders of the Head...
The Jayasingpore Oil Mills Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Kol ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1322
Tambe, J.1. The dispute relates to the validity of the assessment of land revenue of Rs. 504-2-0 annually on 10 acres of the land in question, situate within the municipal limits of Jayasingpore, District Kolhapur. These ten acres form part of survey No. 439, admeasuring about 37 acres and 19 gunthas. in or about the year 1942, 15 acres out of this area was, by the order of the then Kolhapur State, included in the Town Planning scheme and on this 15 acres of land, Rs. 6-12-0 was assessed as non-agricultural assessment. Out of these 15 acres sometime in the year 1945, the then Kolhapur State granted ten acres of land to the petitioner for the purposes of its business of oil mill. The land revenue was proportionately apportioned and these ten acres were assessed to Rs. 4-7-5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner from 1945 had been paying this amount as land revenue. It is a matter of history that on March 1, 1949, the Kolhapur State merged with the State of Bombay and the area, const...
Vishwanath Rupchand Patil Vs. the Bombay Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1285
Mudholkar, J.1. This petition raises some interesting questions arising: under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.2. The petitioner before us is a tenant of field survey No. 7 of mouza Ratir tahsil Khamgaon, district Buldana, and respondent No. 4 is the landlord thereof. Sometime in December 1956 this respondent gave a notice to the petitioner under Section 9(1) of the Act, terminating the tenancy on the ground: that the respondent required the land for cultivating it personally. It may be mentioned that under the lease the petitioner was liable to pay to the respondent half share in the crops and was also liable to pay the land revenue of Rs. 51 assessed on the field. Early in January the petitioner delivered some grain to the respondent which according to the petitioner represented' respondent No. 4's half share in the grain. According to the petitioner he subsequently delivered half share in the kadba, kutar etc., but according to the respondent he did not receive...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›