Mumbai Court January 1960 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.
Raojibhai Vaghjibhai Patel Vs. Karsanbhai Ratnabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR461
S.T. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the landlord of certain lands admeasuring 42 acres 29 gunthas situate atBoroi in Sabarkantha District. Respondent No. 1 is the tenant in occupation of those lands, rent for which was payable in the form of share of crops. The case of the petitioner was that respondent No. 1 had committed default in the payment of rent for the agricultural years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 and, in consequence of the same, he became entitled to terminate the tenancy of respondent No. 1. He gave notice to respondent No. 1 on January 17, 1956, giving intimation that respondent No. 1 had committed two defaults in respect of the agricultural years 1953-54 and 1954-55. It will be necessary to set out the material part of the contents of that notice a little later in our judgment. Correspondence ensued between the parties and the petitioner served another notice on respondent No. 1 on March 16, 1956. In that notice the petitioner sta...
Gendalal Cotton Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Basant Kumaribai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom1; (1960)62BOMLR594
ORDER1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure of theorder of the Court below holding that the Official Liquidators of a limited liability company have no right to institute a suit in forma pauperis for obtaining possession of the property belonging to the Company. 2. As has been pointed out by the Court below there is a conflict of Judicial opinion on this question. There is a group of cases in which it has been held that a Corporation cannot be allowed to sue in forma pauperis, while there is another group of cases in which it is said that it can be so allowed. The learned Judge of the Court below accepted the view of the High Courts of Calcutta, Rangoon and Punjab which is to the effect that a Corporation cannot be allowed to institute a suit as a pauper and dismissed the application made before it by Official Liquidators for being permitted to institute a suit on behalf of the petitioners, The Gendalal Cotton Mills Ltd. 3. Mr. H. R. Gok...
Mulraj Ranchhoddas Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1960
Reported in: 196011STC41Tribunal
1. This revision application has been preferred from an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay, on the 27th of April, 1959. The facts of the case are not seriously in dispute. The applicants purchased a certain quantity of unshelled groundnuts during the period commencing on 1st November, 1952 and ending on 31st March, 1954. In respect of this purchase the Sales Tax Authorities recovered a tax which is now the subject-matter of controversy between the parties. For the period commencing on 1st April, 1954 and ending on 31st March, 1955, the Sales Tax Authorities assessed the applicants to a tax of Rs. 63,099-10-6. It is the contention of the applicants that in respect of this amount they are entitled to a set-off in respect of the tax already paid by them for the period from 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1954. The authorities below did not accept the contention of the applicants and the point taken on behalf of the applicants i...
State Vs. Ramanlal Jamnadas Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR354
Gokhale, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent Ramanlal Jamnadas Gandhi by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 1954, which will hereafter be referred to as the Adulteration Act. The accused is the owner of a grocery shop at Loteshvar, Patan. On November 6, 1958, the Food Inspector of the Patan Municipality visited his shop in the evening and purchased a sample of tea kept by the respondent for sale in his shop. In all 8 oz. of tea was purchased and the Inspector paid its price. The tea so purchased was divided into three parts and one of the parts was sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Baroda, for analysis. The Public Analyst certified that the tea was adulterated and that certificate is exh. 8. The Managing Committee of the Patan Municipality, by Resolution No. 1258 of 1958, decided to prosecute the accused, and accordingly a complaint was filed b...
Jehangir Bhikaji Panthaki Vs. Corporation of the City of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR450
Patwardhan, J. 1. These two special civil applications have been heard together. In these two applications we are called upon to decide as to whether the Directors of the Cloth Milk at Nagpur have got the power to recall a councillor appointed under Section 9(1)(d)(vi) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (II of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In order to determine this question it will be necessary to consider the following sections of the Act, namely, Sections 5(13), 9(1)(d)(vi), 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21. It will also he necessary to consider certain rules framed under the Act, especially the rules framed under Section 9(1)(d)(vi) of the Act (printed at p. 31 of the Rules and By-laws of the Nagpur Corporation) and the rule framed under Section 16 of the Act (printed at p. 75 of the Rules and By-laws).2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 5 of 1960 is one Jehangir Bnikaji Panthaki. He was appointed as a councillor of the Municipal Corporation of the Ci...
Ramkrina Ramnath Shop Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR445
Raju, J.(1) This is a First Appeal by the original plaintiff Ramkrishna Ramnath shop, whose suit against the Union of India, represented by the Eastern Railway, Central Railway and the Southern Railway, for damages amounting to Rs. 15,047 in respect of damage said to have been caused to 54 bags out of the bags of tobacco delivered by the plaintiff to the Southern Railway at Nipani for carriage to Tumsar Road, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhandara. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the plaintiff's case that 54 bags of tobacco had been damaged, and according to him the value of damage was Rs. 13,808-6-6 only and not Rs. 15,047 as claimed in the plaint. But holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove either misconduct or negligence on the part of the railways, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has now come up in appeal and challenges the finding of the Additional District Judge that the plaintiff has failed to prove ...
Waman Vasudeo Wagh Vs. Pratampal Dipaji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR592
ORDER(1) This is an application for revision of the order the City Civil Court granting leave to the petitioner to defend the suit for the recovery of R. 18725/- with costs upon the condition of depositing r. 7500/- (as security). This application was made to this Court on 30-7-1959 and was admitted by Mr. Justice Gokhale on 31-7-1959. After the rule was served on the respondents, Messrs. Rustamji and Jinwala put in an appearance, made an application for expediting the hearing and for fixing a date for the hearing. That application was granted and the matter was directed to be placed for hearing before the Court today. In spite of this no one has appeared before me on behalf of the respondents. (2) It is no doubt true that the point raised here by Mr. Sakhardande is an important one as it deals with the practice which ought to have been followed by the City Civil Court in matters of this kind and I would have liked to hear the other side. However, as the other side has not chosen to ap...
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bai Saraswatibai Natwarlal Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR590
Mudholkar, J.1. These are appeals by the State from orders passed in two suits in favour of the respective plaintiffs granting review of decrees passed in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The two suits were instituted by the legal representatives of certain persons, who it would appear, died in a collision between a truck and a railway train in the year 1949 between Godhra and Dohad on the Western Railway. In each of those cases, decrees for substantial sums of money were passed in favour of the plaintiffs. There were no specific averments in the plaints regarding interest, but in the prayer clause the plaintiffs claimed interest from the Union of India. The entire claim of the plaintiffs was denied in each of those two suits by the Union of India.3. The Court, however, did not frame any issue regarding the liability of the Union of India to pay interest. Thus though the plaintiffs' claims were decreed in those suits, no interest was awarded to them.4. Four years after the decision of the t...
Raja Bahadur Sir Bansilal and Sons Vs. C.R. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR933
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the refusal of granting of a certificate by the respondent under the provisions of Sub-sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947. The relevant facts are as follows:-2. The petitioners are owners of an immoveable property situate at Warden Road, Bombay. The petitioners' case is that they reasonably and bona fide required possession of the immovable property for the immediate purpose of demolition and that the demolition was to be made for erecting a new building. The petitioners, accordingly, by an application dated November 5, 1958, applied for a certificate under Section 13(3B) of the Act. The respondent being the tribunal entitled to give such a certificate by his letter dated November 29, 1958, stated that the petitioners were not entitled to have the certificate having regard to the provisions of Section 13(1)(hh) of the Act. T...
Shree Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. Vs. Nagrashna (M.N.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ581Bom
S.T. Desai, J. 1. This petition raises a question of some importance affecting the jurisdiction of the labour court under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners are textile mills operating at Wankaner in the Saurashtra. Respondents 2 to 6, at all material times, were workmen employed by the mills. According to the petitioners, there was failure of the power plant in the mills between 23 December, 1957 and 26 February, 1958, and the mills had to be closed for a period of about 27 days in shift A and for about 26 days in shift B. During those days, respondents 2 to 6 and some other workers had presented themselves at the premises of the mills but were not given any employment owing to the failure of the power plant. Respondents 2 to 6 claimed that they were entitled to lay-off compensation and that position not having been accepted by the mills, they preferred applications to the respondent 1 praying for ascertainment of the amounts payable to them as such compen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »