Mumbai Court October 1960 Judgments
Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ381Bom; (1961)ILLJ141Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)AWARD1. This industrial dispute was referred to me under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Labour and Social Welfare Department, under its No. AJE. 1758, dated 2 February, 1959. The demands pertained to wage-scales for clerical and technical staff, adjustment, uniforms and gratuity. I made an award on 22 June, 1959. The company preferred in the Bombay High Court Special Civil Application No. 1255 of 1959 under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There the parties arrived at a settlement and the High Court passed the following order : 'By consent the industrial dispute referred to the respondent 1 by the Labour and Social Welfare Department, order No. AJC (it should be AJE) 1758 dated 2 February, 1959 be heard afresh by the respondent 1. The respondent 2 agree that they will not contend at the hearing of the dispute referred to in Clause 2 above before the respondent 1 that any of the issu...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Vishnu Khare Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR371
Tambe, J.1. Petitioners Anant Vishnu Khare and Ramchandra Brijlal have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein they pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari or such other statable direction or order quashing the orders dated March 5, 1959, made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 4 hereto, dated May 6, 1959, made by the Collector, Akola, respondent No. 3 hereto, and dated November 18, 1959, made by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, respondent No. 2 hereto, and also the sales of the land in question held on December 27, 1958, in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 10. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Bombay. The petitioners further pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus or such other suitable direction or order forbidding obstruction by any of the respondents to the petitioners' ownership and possession over the land in question admeasuring 29 acres 12 gunthas.2. Facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. Petitioner No. 1 Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Everest Advertising (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR365
Patel, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order directing that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court and raises a question of interpretation of Section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The short facts are that one Ratanjee Jainshetjee Tata took on lease on March 16, 1909, from the City of Bombay Improvement Trust an open piece of laud. Before this date there was an agreement between the parties for the said purpose on April 4, 1905. In pursuance to the agreement, the lessee erected a building on the land known as Rafia Manzil. By the terms of the lease it is said he became the lessee of the entire land and the building, though he himself had built the building. There haw been successive assignments of the building and the land and before the plaintiff became the assignee, one Jahangir Jamshedji Mahudawala became an assignee of all the rights. All the rights of Mahudawala were assigned to the present plaintiff,...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrabhal Shivshankar Buksh Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR485
Abhyankar, J.1. The appellant Chandrabhal has filed this second appeal against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below dismissing his suit for refund of Rs. 2,112-8-0 recovered from him by way of entertainment duty.2. The appellant admittedly was a proprietor of a show which called itself 'Grand Exhibition and Amusement Park' at which a number of persons were admitted on payment of certain amount. At this show two mechanical devices, called Chairoplane and Giant Wheel, were constructed. Chairoplane is a contraption with chairs and by mechanical operation they are sent round in circular motion. The Giant Wheel is a contrivance which has hanging seats and while the wheel is going round certain number of times, the persons sit in those hanging seats. The appellant admittedly collected payments on admission to this amusement show. What the appellant contends is that he is not liable for payment of any entertainment duty on the payments received for using the two devices because under t...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Fattelal Vs. Tulsiram Pandhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR487
Abhyankar, J.1. This is defendant No. 1 Laxminarayan's second appeal against the reversing judgment of the District Judge, Akola, passed in Civil Appeal No. 16-A of 3955, arising out of Civil Suit No. 249-A of 1953, decided by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Akola.2. Respondents Pandurang, Tulsiram and Vishwanath filed the present suit against the present appellant claiming the following reliefs:That the Court be pleased to declare that the mortgage in respect of Kazikheda field of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No. 1 has been finally discharged on 20-3-1942 and that any mortgage decree obtained by defendants 1 and 2 on the foot of the mortgage is void in law and the defendants 1 and 2 cannot claim possession of the field in execution thereof; as a consequence of this declaration the Court be pleased to enjoin permanently defendants 1 and 2 not to disturb the possession of the field S. No. 24/3 of mouza Kazikheda, Taluq Balapur, District Akola.3. The suit arose in conseque...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Balwant Ganpati Mulye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR87
Tarkunde, J.1. The question referred to us in these two criminal references is whether Section 129A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, which allows compulsion to be exercised for the medical examination of a person believed to have consumed an intoxicant and for the extraction of his blood for chemical analysis, violates the guarantee against self-incrimination contained in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. In both the cases the accused have been charged with offences under Section 66(1)(b) and Section 85 of the Prohibition Act, and the prosecution have sought to rely on evidence of the alcoholic content of the blood extracted from the veins of the accused. Along with these two criminal references, we have heard a criminal application filed under Article 228 of the Constitution, in which the petitioner, who is being tried by a Magistrate for an offence under Section 129A(5) of the Prohibition Act of offering resistance to the collection of his blood, prays that this Court should decide on...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nathumal Damumal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom21; (1961)63BOMLR362; ILR1961Bom735
ORDER(1) This is a Reference, which it is not possible for me to accept on the grounds made out in the judgment of reference. A few facts may shortly be stated for the purposes of the judgment. I will employ the nomenclature used for the parties in the trial Court.(2) The petitioners in the Sessions Court were three of the accused along with one Nathumal Damumal trading in Deolali Camp in Nasik District. Nathumal Damumal was Accused No. 1 Accused No. 2 Messrs. India Drugs Laboratory Private Ltd., is a drug manufacturing company in Calcutta. Accused Nos. 4 to 6 are Directors of Accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 purchased 15,000 lbs., of tincture laricis BP 1891 manufactured by accused No. 2 on 15th March 1956. Accused No. 1 transported this tincture to Indore and thereafter sent 5000 lbs to Nasik by rail and 10000 lbs by truck to Malegaon. Drugs Department got information about these drugs having been consigned by accused No. 1, as a result of which, at both the places, i.e. at Nasik and at ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Oil Engines, Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ126Bom
ORDER1. These are two references by the Government of Bombay under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of a dispute between the Kirloskar Oil Engines, Ltd., Kirkee, Poona, and the workmen employed under it over the reinstatement of certain workmen. 2. The company wishes to appear through Sri G. B. Pai who is a member of the executive committee of the Employers' Federation of India, of which this company is a member. The union objects to the appearance of Sri Pai on the ground that he is a legal practitioner. In a previous case before me of the Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India, Ltd., Bombay, and another v. The workmen employed under it : (1959)IILLJ435Bom a similar objection was taken to the appearance of Sri G. B. Pai and I disallowed it. Sri Khadilkar who has appeared for the union has, however, urged that in that case the point does not appear to have been pressed by the union. He has further relied on a recent decision by the learned industrial tribu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›