Mumbai Court September 1959 Judgments
All India Reporter Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom292; (1960)62BOMLR251; ILR1961Bom257
Kotwal, J.Raju, J.1. I would like to add the following observe ons on the question of limitation.2. In order to appreciate the points of law involved, it is necessary to state a few relevant f acts :3. In the plaint two plaintiffs were named, nambly, (1) All India Reporter, Limited, Bombay and (2) Shri V. V. Chitaley. The plaint was signed by Shri V. V. Chitaley (Plaintiff No. 2) and by one S. 0. Ghushey who signed as agent to plaintiff No. 1. It was also verified by S- B. Ghushey as agent to plaintiff No. 1. The plaint was filed on 18-2-1949, one day prior to the expiry of tbe period of limitation. The plaint was presented by Shri Shidhaye Advocate, whose power was signed by V. V. Chitaley and S. B. Ghushey who signed as agent of plaintiff No. 1. Along with the plaint, a power of attorney by AIR Limited, in favourof S. B. Ghushey, dated 1-5-46, was filed. After the date of this power of attorney and before the date of the suit, AIR Limited was converted intoa public Limited Company in...
Tag this Judgment!Walter Thompson Company (J.) (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (including ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ89Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(2) AWARD1. This industrial dispute between J. Walter Thompson Company (Private), Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen including clerical staff employed under it has been referred to me as industrial tribunal under Sub-section (2) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay (empowered under S. 39 of the said Act by the Government of Bombay as per Labour and Social Welfare Department Notification, No. IDA. 3557, dated 8 May 1957, by his order No. AJJ. 42, dated 23 October 1958. The dispute relates to a demand for gratuity, leave and other matters mentioned in the schedule to the said order. 2. J. Walter Thompson Company (Private), Ltd., Bombay, is a company of long standing. It is a subsidiary of J. Walter Thompson Company, Ltd., of New York. The Bombay office it appears was started about thirty years ago to conduct business in the eastern countries of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Sabarkantha Vs. Shankarlal Kalidas Patel and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR400
Mudholkar, J.(1) This is an appeal under S.202 of the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913, from the order of the District Judge, Ahmedabad.(2) The relevant fact are as follos: In the former State of Idar a private limited company called the Himatnagar Glass and Ceramic Industries Ltd. was founded. Originally, it as a private limited company but eventually it was converted into a public limited company. Just before this conversion the State of Idar purchased preference shares of the fact vale of Rs. 1,00,000 in this company and paid the full amount of the share money. Along with these shares the State also purchased ordinary shares of the value of Rs. 1,00,000. Only half of the share money had been called and, therefore, the State paid only Rs. 50,000. Thus, a balance of Rs. 50,000 as the unpaid call in respect of these shares. The State also lent Rs. 10,000 to the company partly on 5th March 1945 and partly on 6th April 1945.(3) It would appear that this concern ran into difficulties and ...
Tag this Judgment!Jerry Sabastien Pareira Vs. Badshah (A.A.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1959
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ99Bom
Shah, J. 1. The petitioner is a worker employed by Messrs. Richardson & Cruddas, Ltd., who are hereinafter referred to as the employers. The petitioner applied before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Bombay area, praying for an order for payment of delayed wages and for compensation alleging that for the wage period 25 June, 1956 and 15 August, 1956, wages due to him had not been paid by the employers. The petitioner submitted that although he was ready and willing to work from 25 June, 1956 to 14 August, 1956 he had been prevented by the employers and was lockedout on the plea that he had gone an illegal strike; that the lockout was unjust, improper and illegal, being declared during the pendency of proceeding before the industrial tribunal in Reference No. 127 of 1954, in which the petitioner was concerned, and that even after the declaration of the said lockout, the petitioner through his trade union, informed the employers that he and other workers were ready and wi...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Company Ltd. (Calico and J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ770Bom
Shah, J.1. The petitioners are a limited liability company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. They carry on the business of manufacturing and selling cotton textile goods. The petitioners have two factories in Ahmedabad : one is popularly known as the Calico Mills and the other as the Jubilee Mills. These two factories are situated in different localities separated by a distance of about four miles. For transporting raw materials and finished goods from one factory to the other the petitioners maintain a fleet of motor lorries and for driving those motor lorries and for driving those motor lorries they employer motor-drivers. On 21 April, 1948, an award was made by the industrial court standardizing the wages of all workers employed in the textile industry in the town of Ahmedabad. This award did not apply to lorry-drivers. By another award dated 1 November, 1951 the industrial court fixed the minimum wages payable to the lorry-drivers at Rs. 48 per month, and regarding the h...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kamalakar Prabhakar Juvekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1674; 1960CriLJ814
Shah, J.(1) One Kamalakar Prabhakar Juvekar, who will herafter the referred to as the acused was charged before the Presidenc Magistrate, 12the court, Bandra, Bomaby in Case No. 1953/p of 1958 , for offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 337 I.P.C It was the case for the prosecution that on 10-10-1958 the accused drove S.K.M.M Cos.Bus No BYL 4441in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to compoing the offence under S. 337 I.P.C. and asked for the permission of the court in that and asked for the permission of the Court in that behalf. The trial Magistrate granted leave to compound and acquitted the accused of that charge. He then observed that the charge under S. 279 I.P.C also failed in view o the order of acquittal under S. 337 I.P.C and in support of that view he relied upon an nreported decision of this court in Homi Jehangir Lali v. State criminal Appl. No. 672of 1951 /- 1.10.1951 Agaist the order of acquital for the offence under S. 279 I.P.C the State has appealed to th...
Tag this Judgment!Margoni Yelliah Samayya Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR86
Gokhale, J. 1. This application raises an important question as to the interpretation of Section 150 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (No. II of 1955), which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Code'. The point arises in this way: 2. The petitioner is the Bhumidhari of five survey numbers, viz. S. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, admeasuring in area 37 acres and 15 gunthas, assessed athis. 7, and situate at mouza Kambalpetta Chak, Tahsil Sironcha, District Chanda. On January 3, 1957, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Sironcha, under Section 150(1) of the Code for obtaining Bhumiswami rights in these fields and deposited three times the revenue assessed on his fields as required by that section. The application was for a declaration in his favour that he became a Bhumiswami of the lands comprised in the holding. His application was rejected by the Tahsildar on August 27, 1957, on the ground that no rules had been framed under Section 150 of the Code and since t...
Tag this Judgment!Phulchand Lakhmichand JaIn and anr. Vs. Hukumchand Gulabchand JaIn and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR308
Patel, J.(1) This appeal arises out of a final decree made by the learned District Judge of West Khandesh at Dhulia in a suit instituted for accounts of a temple known as 'Shri Chandraprabhu Khandelwal Jain Temple' at Dhulia.(2) The plaintiffs alleged that the temple was a public trust; that all the members of the Khandelwal Jain Community were interested in the trust; that it was a temple of the Community and that the devotees offer their oblations to the temple on various occasions in their families; that certain festivals were held in the temple; that the father of the defendant No. 1 was a leading member in the community and for more than 40 years he was looking after the temple. After the death of Gulabchand Hiralal, hi son, the defendant No. 1, started managing the property,- the death of his father was somwwhere in 1949. It was further alleged that Gulabchand Hiralal contended that the temple was his familyproperty and that the members of the public had nthing to do with the tem...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Ramnath Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR172; [1960]11STC811(Bom)
Kotval, J. 1. The petitioners Messrs Ramkrishna Ramnath, Bidi Merchants of Kamptee, carry on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis, with their head office at Kamptee and branch offices at several other places such as Tumsar, Gondia, Bhandara, Tiroda, Nagpur, Akola and other places in Vidarbha. The petitioners are registered dealers under section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. As registered dealers, the petitioners were making quarterly returns under section 10 of the Act. For the period from 7th November, 1953, to 26th October, 1954, they had similarly made their returns. It is now not in dispute that these returns were not made upon the due dates under the Act but were delayed by some days. The respective dates on which the returns were due and were actually filed are shown in a tabular statement below :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return for the Due date D...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay Vs. Indore Malwa United Mi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1959
Reported in: [1960]39ITR438(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. The dispute in this reference relates to assessment years 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948-49. The assessee is a limited company having offices at Bombay and Indore, and has a factory for manufacturing cotton textiles at Indore within the territory of the former State of Indore. During the relevant accounting years, on orders placed by the Stores Department, Government of India, the assessee supplied textile goods for war purposes. The purchase order were placed by the Stores Department with assessee at Indore, and the delivery was to be f.o.r. Indore. The orders were received by the assessee at Indore and the same were returned to the Government of India, Supply Department, duly signed by the general manager of the assessee at Indore. There were, it appears, orders of two types - (i) the purchase war order, and (ii) bulk purchase order. On the reverse of the form of the purchase war order certain conditions were printed. It was recited therein that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »