Mumbai Court August 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.
State of Bombay Vs. Mohanmadh Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1644; 1960CriLJ465
ORDER(1) The opponent Mohamadkhan son of Hasankhan, aged about 25, by occupation a bidimanufacturer, of Nagpur, is being prosecuted before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, for an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1959. The prosecution alleged that he was responsible for kidnapping one Mst. Lila wife of Karudas who a worker in the bidi factory owned by him. Mst Lila had been working there during the year 1958 and on or about 16-7-1958 she had a quarrel wiith her husband karudas. As a result of the quarrel she left her husbands place and was going to her grand mothers place at about 8-30 or 9.pm At about this time the opponent is said to have met her on the road and persuaded her to accompany him. She was taken to the house of Babibkhan (P.W.5) where she was kept for two days. With the merits of these allegations I am not here concerned. (2) After part of the prosecution evidence had been tendered before the sessions court, the ses...
State Vs. M.M. Pinto
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1617; 1960CriLJ798; (1960)ILLJ59Bom
Naik, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquital passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate. 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. The material facts may, briefly, be stated as follows: on 1-4-1958, Factry Inspector Shinde visited the premises of a concern known as Western India Saw Mills situated at Reay Road, Bombay-10. His object ws to inspect the factory under the Factories Act. He found that thirty workers were actually engaged in doing some job or in the other on the premises of the factory. He also noticed that the manufacturing process of cutting, plaining and shapping of wook was going on with the aid of power. The accused respondent produced a register Ex. A. which contained 19 names in one place and additional nine names at another place. According to the Inspector, all the thirty persons, who were engaged in the factory, were workers within the meaning of that word in the factories Act 1948. He, therefore, lkodged a complain is the learned Presidence Magistr...
Patwardhan Tailors, Poons Vs. their Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ722Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(5)AWARD1. This industrial dispute was referred to me under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Labour and Social Welfare Department order, No. A.J.P. 71(1) 59, dated 11 March, 1959. The demands of the workmen pertain to stitching charges, holidays, sick leave, bonus, permanency and reinstatement of certain workers. 2. The company has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the tailors who are involved in this reference are independent contractors and not the workmen of the company. The preliminary objection must therefore be first decided. Oral evidence has been led by both sides on this point and certain documents have been tendered in evidence. 3. This firm has three kinds of workers. There are a few who are the permanent employees of the company and who are monthly paid. There are some others who take cloth which is cut according the measurements by the cutter...
Appa Shivling Vs. Vithal Baba and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1671
Tambe, J. (1) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one Anna son of Shivling of Pusad frmerly a protected lessee of S. No. 130/1-B, situate at mouza Pusad. It arises out of a matter under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Originally the petitioner had taken a lease from the joint family consisting of Baba and his two sons Vithal and Sambha, third son Mortiram had already separated. Facts germane to the point we have to consider in brief are: On 27-12-54, a partition amongst the members of the family was reduced to writing on that date and the doucment was registered on 29-12-1954. It appears that prior to the exeuction of the deed of partition on 27-12-1954 a notice was sent by Baba on behalf of Vithal under S. 9(1) of the Act intimating to the petitioner that the land was required by Vithal for personal cultivation and therefore it was proposed to terminate the tenancy as and from 31-3-1955....
Prithvirajsinhji Mansinghji Vs. Bai Shivprabhakumari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR47
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of opponent No. 1, has raised a preliminary objection and contended that against the order passed by the learned trial Judge an appeal would be competent to the District Court, and if an appeal is competent, then, contends Mr. Thakkar, a revision application would nc't be maintainable. The argument of Mr. Thakkar on this point briefly is that under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be hereafter referred to as the Act) all decrees and orders made by the Court are expressly declared to be appealable, and this being an order directing payment of interim maintenance under Section 24, it would be appealabje and the appeal would lie to the District Court. In support of his argument Mr. Thakkar relies on a recent judgment of this Court Gngadhar Rakhamaji v. Manjula (1958) 61 Bom. L.R. 442. In that case it was held that when a Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, no...
Radheshyam Makhanlal Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR11
Shah, J.(1) In this petition two questions fall to be determined: (I) whether the Union Parliament was competent to enact Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act. 1959 (Act No. 1 of 1959) whereby Section 49EE was incorporated in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, prohibiting the entertainment of claims for refund of money paid or security furnished pursuant to settlements relating to assessment or re-assessment and conferring power upon the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner to set off in certain cases moneys in the possession of Government against tax found due in proceedings for assessment under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act? and (ii) whether this Court is competent to issue a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India compelling the Union of India to refund due in an amount of money or to return the securities collected or received pursuant to a settlement recorded under the procedure prescribed by Act ...
Radheshyam Makhanlal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom353; [1960]40ITR624(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. In this petition two questions fall to be determined : (i) Whether the Union Parliament was competent to enact section 3 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959 (1 of 1959), whereby section 49EE was incorporated in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, prohibiting the entertainment of claims for refund of money paid or security furnished pursuant to settlements relating to assessment or reassessment and conferring power upon the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner to set off in certain cases moneys in the possession of Government against tax found due in proceedings for assessment under the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act (ii) Whether this court is competent to issue a writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India compelling the Union of India to refund an amount of money or to return the securities collected or received pursuant to a settlement recorded under the procedure prescribed by Act XXX of 1947,...
Morlays (B'Ham) Ltd. Vs. Roshanlal Ramsahai and Anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom156; (1960)62BOMLR608
1. Mr. Parpia's contention is that the true meaning of the words 'as if' as used in Sub-section (1) (of Section 44-A Civil P. C.) is that the decree in favour of the Plaintiffs must be treated as having been passed by this Court and consequently it must he held to have been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. In my view that contention is contrary to and impossible having regarding to the provisions in sub-section (3) which provides that this Court as executing Court shall refuse execution of the Plaintiffs' decree if it falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13. As I have already held the decree in question falls within exception (a) of section 13 and is a decree not of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The words 'as if' are used in sub-section (1) to make the whole scheme of Order XXIapplicable in respect of execution of decrees ot foreign Courts mentioned in sub-section (1). The words 'as if' have no wider meaning as is suggested by M...
Shankarlal Bholaram Vs. Mohammad Ayyub, Madaran MomIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1642; 1960CriLJ326
ORDER(1) This is an application for revision directed against an order passed on 20-1-1959 by Mr. G. R. Dewaika, Magistrate First Class, Kamptee, dismissing a complaint filed by the applicant Shankerlal against the four opponents.(2) The complaint was filed on 6-10-1958 and the complainant Shankarlal was examined on 13-10-1958. Thereafter a police challan came to be filed before the same Magistrate on 21-10-1958. The challan alleged substantially the same facts and made out the same offences. The Magistrate, however, for some reason returned the challan. It was re-presented bofore him on 27-10-1958 when he felt that it was triable by a Second Class Magistrate and therefore ordered it to be sent to such a Magistrate after obtaining orders of the Additional District Magistrate. In consequence of this order, he further ordered on 28-10-58 that the complaint filed on 6-10-58 should be stayed to await the decision of the Additional District Magistrate upon the challan.(3) Meanwhile the appl...
Atmasing Pagsing Vs. Anil Starch Products Ltd., Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ77Bom
1. The complainant, Atmasing Pagsing, was a watchman, in the opponent company, On 17 November, 1958, he was suspended on the charge of neglect of duty pending inquiry. After an inquiry the company discharged him stating that they had lost confidence in the complainant on 20 November, 1958. 2. The complainant says that this was in contravention of S. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as a dispute was pending before this tribunal and no approval was taken. According to the company it was merely an order of discharge not passed as a punishment and therefore it is not necessary to obtain approval under S. 33. It also denies that the discharge was without inquiry or without giving an opportunity to the complainant to explain and defend himself. 3. The legal point as to whether approval was necessary in this case or not must be decided first. It is clear from the wording of S. 33(2) that only when the discharge or dismissal is for misconduct and passed as a punishment that an approval is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »