Mumbai Court November 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.
Varjivandas Khushaldas Gandhi Vs. Ravindra Motilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR332
Naik, J.1. The appellants, who would hereafter be referred to as 'the firm', carry on business at Bombay as share and stock brokers. The firm is a member of an Association which was originally known as the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association. The respondent, who will hereafter be referred to as Ravindra, was a constituent of the firm. He was not a member of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association. In the year 1955 Ravindra entered into contracts for the purchase and sale of stocks and shares through the firm, Contract notes in the form exh. A were executed from time to time in the name of the firm by Ravindra. One of the terms of these contracts was that the contract was subject to the rules and reflations of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association. With regard to disputes arising between the parties, the contract note, provides:-In the event of any dispute arising between you and us out of or relating to dealings, transactions, and contracts, the matter shall b...
Krishna Steel Industries (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (including the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ143Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33C and 36ADECISION1. This is a reference made to me under S. 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for interpretation of the award in Reference (I.T.) No. 165 of 1957 in the dispute between the Krishna Steel Industries (Private), Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen (including the staff) employed under it. The dispute in the said reference related to three demands - (1) production bonus, (2) lockout and lay-off wages for the period from 25 February 1957 to 24 April 1957, and (3) the reinstatement of two workers Sri Mohamed Yasin and Kasim Sharmuddin. With regard to the said two workers the demand stood thus : 'Sri Mohamed Yasin, T. No. 136, and Sri Kasim Sharmuddin, T. No. 121, should be reinstated immediately on the same post and with the same conditions of service, which they were getting prior to their termination of service. They should also be paid full wages for the period from 26 April, 1957 to the date of their reinsta...
Gulamahamed Tarasaheb Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: [1961(3)FLR122]; (1961)ILLJ702Bom
Gokhale, J.1. This special civil application under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by four bidi-manufacturing factories in Marathwada under these circumstances : In 1955, after the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Act'), was made applicable to bidi factories in Hyderabad, the Government of the State of Hyderabad issued a notification fixing the minimum rates of wages for bidi-workers. This notification dated 4 March, 1955 came into force on 30 March, 1955 in four areas of the Hyderabad State. On 1 November, 1956 five districts of Marathwada merged with the Bombay State and on 18 November, 1957 the Deputy Commissioner of Labour informed all the employers of the tobacco manufactories in the areas of Marathwada that the Government of Bombay was considering the revision of minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act and that Sri Dhutia, Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, would conduct an inquiry in respect of the exist...
Bapurao Dhondiba and anr. Vs. Neroji Ramji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom300; (1961)63BOMLR576
V.S. Desai, J.1. This second appeal raises a short question relating to the rights of the reversioners to challenge the alienation effected by a Hindu widow prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The respondent No. 4 Sarja Bai, who was the widow of Irba and whose property she had inherited as a Hindu widow on his death, effected a sale-deed in respect of some of the properties in favour of the appellants on 29th August 1953. The respondents 1 to 3, who are the sons of the cousins of Irba claiming to be the next reversioners to the estate filed the present suit for a declaration that the sale-deed effected by respondent No. 4 in favour of the appellants was without any consideration and without legal necessity and did not affect the rights of thenext reversioners in respect of the property comprised in the sale-deed. The suit was resisted by the appellants, who were the alienees on the ground that tile alienation had been effected by Sarjabai for the payment of anteceden...
Gulamahamed Tarasaheb and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom97; (1961)63BOMLR323; ILR1961Bom491
Gokhale, J.(1) This Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by four Bidi Manufacturing Factories in Marathwada under these circumstances: In 1955, after the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Act') was made applicable to bidi factories in Hyderabad, the Government of the State of Hyderabad issued a notification fixing the minimum rates of wages for bidi-workers. This notification, dated 4th March 1955, came into force on 30th March 1955 in four areas of the Hyderabad State. On 1st November 1956, five districts of Marathwada merged with the Bombay State and on 18th November 1957, the Deputy commissioner of Labour informed all the employers of the tobacco manufactories in the areas of Marathwada that the Government of Bombay was considering the revision of minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act and that Mr. Dhuttia, Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, would conduct an inquiry in respect ...
Vasant Shankar Oak Vs. Raghunath Devaji Bankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR404
Naik, J.1. These three revision applications raise a common point and can, therefore, he disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners (who will hereafter be called the tenants) made applications to the Small Causes Court, Bombay, for the fixation of the standard rent under Section 11 of the Rent Act in respect of their respective premises. The opponent (who will hereafter be called the landlord), who is common in all these applications, resisted the said applications on the ground that the predecessors of the present tenants had made similar applications before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thana, and that there was an order fixing the standard rent based on the consent of the parties. It was contended that the judgment in those cases operated as judgment in rem and, therefore, the applications by the present tenants were barred. That contention was upheld and the applications were dismissed by the trial Judge. Applications, in revision, were filed to the full court of the Sma...
State Vs. Vishandas Motiram Malwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR294; [1961]12STC409(Bom)
Shah, J.1. Appeal No. 664 of 1960 has been filed by the State against an order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplande, Bombay, acquitting one Vishandas Motiram Malwani, who was accused No. 1 in Case No. 188/P/59, of an offence under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision Application No. 706 of 1960 is also filed by the State against all the four accused in the aforesaid case for the enhancement of sentence passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate against them in respect of an offence under section 353 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. None of the accused, it may be noted, has filed any appeal against his conviction under section 353 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case for the prosecution was that on 7th April, 1959, one Ghanekar, a Sales Tax Officer, received an assignment from the Additional Collector, Sales Tax, Enforcement Branch, to visit the place of business of Messrs L. Chaturbuj & Co. to inspect ...
Keki Bejonji and anr. Vs. State of Bombay (Now Maharashtra)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ37
S.J. Imam, J.1. The appellants were convicted under Sections 65(b), 65(f) and 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the Presidency Magistrate XX Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. The appellant No. 1 was sentenced to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 65(b). No separate sentence was imposed under the other sections. Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 under Section 65(b). No separate sentence was imposed under the other sections. They appealed to the Bombay High Court against their convictions and sentence. The High Court set aside their convictions under Sections 65(b) and 66(b) of the Act but maintained their conviction under Section 65(f) read with Section 81 relying on the presumption against the appellants arising out of Section 103 of the Act. The High Court accordingly directed that the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon the appellants by the Presid...
The Central Hindusthan Italian Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Pitty Br ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom222; (1961)63BOMLR966
(1-11) x x x x x x x (12) The whole of the Plaintiff's case must be based on the provisions in section 64-A of the Sale of goods Act, the relevant part thereof runs as follows:64-A 'In the event of any duty of customs or excise on any goods being imposed, increased, decreased or remitted after the making of any contract x x x x for the sale of such goods duty-paid where duty was chargeable at that time- (a) if such imposition or increase so takes effect that the duty or increased duty, x x x x x x x is paid, the seller may add so much to the contract price as will be equivalent to the amount paid in respect of such duty or increase of duty, and he shall be entitled to be paid and to sue for and recover such addition, and (b) if such decrease or remission so takes effect that the decreased duty only or no duty, as the case may be, is paid, the buyer may deduct so much from the contract price as will be equivalent to the decrease of duty or remitted duty and he shall not be liable to pa...
Abdul Gani Abdul Shakoor Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR317; (1961)ILLJ696Bom
Shah, J. 1. This is an application filed by the accused against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, under S. 52 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, on two counts falling under S. 7, Sub-section (1) of the Act and rule 18, Sub-rule (14) made under the Act. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the accused was holding a licence issued under S. 313 of the Bombay Municipal Act which is called the hawkers and squatters licence and in pursuance of which he sold his wares in a particular area, the dimensions of which were mentioned in the licence. According to the licence inspector, the pitch for the stall of this accused was fixed as pitch for the stall of this accused was fixed as pitch No. 22 and the accused could not move his stall from that pitch to any other pitch without the permission of the superintendent of licences. This fact was admitted by the accused in his statement before the Court. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »