Mumbai Court August 1959 Judgments
The State of Bombay Vs. Laxman Sakharam Pimparkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR106
S.T. Desai, J.(1) This second appeal by the State of Bombay raises some interesting questions of considerable importance affecting the right of riparian owners, under the general law, to the extra-ordinary use of water of a natural stream flowing past their lands by putting up Bandharas for the purpose of irrigating their lands. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by seven agriculturists of the village Jopul in Chandwad Taluka in the District of Nasik in a representative capacity on behalf of themselves and others claiming as riparian owners the irght to put up thre kachha dams (bandharas) at specified points in the river Shelu and receive water therefrom for the purpose of irrigating their lands abutting on the river. It appears that n 1947 some villagers of Devargaon, who were lower riparian owners complained to the Government about the diminution of flow of water to them in consequence of the Bandharas constructed up-stream by the villagers of Jopul and orders were ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabrao Anandrao Vs. Ramji Anandrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1651
Raju, J.1. This appeal arises out of a litigation between members of a Hindu family. The appellant Gulabrao, son of Anandrao Zadc, is the original defendant No. 2.2. The suit was filed by two plaintiffs, who are brothers of the appellant, namely plaintiff No. 1 Ramji and plaintiff No. 2 Gunderao, both sons of Anandrao Zade, who died on March 9, 1938, leaving behind four sons, Shamrao (defendant No. 1), Gulabrao (defendant No. 2-appellant), Ramji (plaintiff No. 1) .and Gunderao (plaintiff No. 2), and three sons of a deceased son Vithoba. The three sons of the deceased Vithoba are defendants Nos. 3 to 5. Anandrao also left behind him his widow Radhabai who died on April 16, 1951. The two plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/5ths share in the joint family properties mentioned in Schedules A and B attached to the plaint. Schedule A refers to the immovable property and Schedule Bi refers to the movable property i.e. ornaments, household utensils, cattle...
Tag this Judgment!Vakratunda Chintaman Deo Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1501
Shah, J.(1) These are three appeals from awards made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, poona in a group of land acquisition references. By a notification published on 12.12.1946 in exercise of powers under S. 4 of the land Acquisition Act, the Government of Bombay notified fr acquisition 276 acres and 35 gunthas of land out of the village of Aundha, in the District of Poona, for the National chemical Laboratry. the lands at the date of the notification were in the possession of occupants. The claimant, who is one of the Inamdars of the illage, was awarded Rs.4,093-9-6 as capitalised value of agricultural assessment receivable by him in respect of the lands from the occupants. The occupants were separately awarded compensation for compulsory acquisition of their interest in the lands. We are, in these appeals not concerned with the Compensation which was awarded to the occupants of the lands. It may be noticed however that compensation was awarded compensation for compulsory acquisit...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Nagesh Deodhar Vs. the Poona City Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR71
S.T. Desai, J.1. This second appeal raises the question of the vires, of a 'tax on octroi refunds', also called 'tax on refund', collected by the Poona Municipal Corporation and also questions of maintainability of the suit and bar of limitation. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the', respondent-defendant, the Poona Municipal Corporation, to recover a sum of Rs. 7,814-15-0 alleging that the amount had been illegally retained by the defendant Corporation as 'tax on refund' and that he was entitled to recover that amount in circumstances which we shall immediately set out. At all material, time, the plaintiff worked as a commission agent for numerous persons whose goods passed through the limits of the Poona City Municipality. The Provincial Municipal Corporations Act of 1949 was applied to the Poona City on February 15, 1950, and prior to the coming into operation of that Act, the Poona City Municipality was governed by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act of 1925. Prior to tha...
Tag this Judgment!Allijan Munshi Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1620; 1960CriLJ894
Shah, J.(1) After narrating the facts and examining certain contentions of the counsel for the appellant, his Lordship proceeded). Then, it was urged by Mr. Chari that the learned Judge allowed inadmissible evidence to be admitted on the record and that evidence must have seriously prejudiced the mind of the jury against the appellant. Reliance was sought to be placed upon the complaint, Exhibit C, which was submitted by Rashida on 15th August 1958 to the Commissioner of Police. By that complaint the appellant was charged with being a drunkard a gambler, a man of notoriously bad character and a 'white slaver' who desired to dispose of his own wife (Rashida) for the purpose of prostitution and that e had committed rape upon his sister-in-law. The question of the admissibility of this complaint was, it appears, not raised before the trial Court and the complaint was admitted in evidence. Mr. Chari contends that a statement made by the victim of an offence which is not proximate in time t...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Limited Vs. G.V. Bedekar and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1572
Amudholkar, J. (1) This is a petition under Artt. 226 of the constitution and is directed against the order of the appellate committee of the State transport Authority. The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner is a co operative society registered under the Hyderabad co operative Societies Act, XVI of 1952 and is carrying on the business of plying stage Carriage BusService in the Parbhani District (marathwada) of Bombay State, since December 1954. From 2.10.1955 the petitioner has been plying the stage carriage service on four routs. 1. Parbhani to Jintoor, 2. Jintoor to Saily via Mantha, 3. Aundhi to Hingoli,. 4. Jinotoor to Aundh, under susbtantial permits granted to it by the State Transport Authority of the former Huderabad State. These permits werefor a period of three years and expired on 1-10-1958. (2) On or about 19-5-1958, the divisional controller of the State Transport, Marathwada who is respondent No. 14 to this petition. made an application to the Regional Transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lakhamsi Budhadev Vs. Harshadrai Nandalal Bhuta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1648; 1960CriLJ812
Shah, J.(1) The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate 19th Court, Bombay charging accused Nos. 1 and 2 with having committed and offence under S. 420 I.P.C and accused No. 3 with having abetted the commissioner of that offence. It was alleged in the complaint to that the third accused persuaded the petitioner to enter into a contract shipping 2000 Tons of oil cakes on board s.s Dmitri Donskoy with the Atlas Engineering Company on a representation that accused Nos 1 and 2 werepartners of that representation and it turned out, after the contract was broken and the consignment was not booked that acused Nos. 1 and 2 confirmed the representation and it turned out, after the constract was broken and the consignment was not partners of the Atlas Engineering Company and that one Babubhai Rikahchand and Lallbhai Babulal Shah were in truth the partner of that firm petitioners would have enterd into the shipping contract. Holding that the no prima facie case was ...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Labour Union, Nadiad Vs. New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ129Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Sections 3 and 81; Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 2(4) and 6; Payment of Wages (Amendment) Act, 1953 - Section 3; Payment of Wages Rules - Rule 8A; Constitution of India - Article 254DECISION1. This case was referred by the Judge of the Second Labour Court at Ahmedabad, under S. 81 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The question of law that we have to decide is, whether S. 3 of the Bombay Act LXII of 1953 is void on account of its repugnancy to S. 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, IV of 1936. 2. This point arises in the following circumstances. The Textile Labour Union, Nadiad, filed an application against the New Shorrock Spinning and ., Nadiad, stating that the company by its failure to pay to its employees the entire amount of bonus by a certain date stated in the agreement, had committed an illegal change, which it should be directed to withdraw. It is common ground that on 18 September, 1958 an agreement was...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Chronicle Company (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ727Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 7 and 12(5)AWARD1. This is a reference made by the Government of Bombay under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute between the Bombay Chronicle Company (Private), Ltd., Bombay (to be referred hereinafter as the company), and the workmen employed under it over the following demands :- Schedule 'Demand No. 1. - The management should withdraw the notice, dated 15 May, 1958, terminating the services of Sri Solie Petit and the notice, dated 15 October, 1958, terminating the services of Sri K. G. Narayanachar. Sri Petit and Sri Narayanachar be reinstated in their former position from the date of termination of their services. They should be paid the full wages and other allowances which they used to receive normally and all that their rights, under the law in regard to leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters be restored to them as if they were in service. Demand No. 2. - The management ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumatiben Vs. Jascant Bhogilal Sutaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1565
ORDER(1) The petitoner in this case is the wife, the respondent being her former husband, her marriage with whom has been dissolved. The petitioner was married a son since named Tarang was born to the petitoner on the 10th of August 1948. On or abour 11-3-1955 the petitioner filed suit No. 166 and 1955, being the suit in which this petition has been filed, agianst the respondent for divorces and dissolution of the said marriage on the ground of desertion of the said marriage on the ground of desertion under the provisions of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, which was then in force. In the suit there was prayer for dissolution of marriage but there was a prayer for dissolution of marriage but there was no prayer for the custody of the son Tarang, although since prior to te filing of the suit Tarang was in the custody of the respondent. A decree for dissolution of marriage in the suit on 12-4-1944. The petitioner, in November 1958, filed the present petition praying inter alia for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »