Mumbai Court June 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.
Sharifbai Mehmoob Vs. Abdul Razak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom42; 1961BomCR(Cri)42; (1960)62BOMLR816; 1961CriLJ228; ILR1960Bom938
ORDER1. This application has been filed by the complainant against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anti-corruption, Poona, dismissing the com plaint under Section 203 read with Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act.2. The case for the prosecution was that P.S.I. Khan of the Bund Garden Police Station received a complaint of theft on 9-7-1958 from one Mohamed Nathu Mistry. During the investigation of that offence P.S.I. Khan arrested the complainant on 2nd August, 1958, but she was ultimately released on 6th August, 1958, as there was no sufficient evidence against her. The complainant then filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Anti-corruption, at Poona, against P.S.I. Khan on 5-2-1959 alleging that her arrest and detention from 2-8-1958 upto 6-8-1958 was mala fide and unlawful. The learned Judicial Magistrate referred that complaint to the police under Section 202 of th...
Ambu Kisan Vaditke Vs. Venubai Limba and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom261; (1960)62BOMLR869; 1961CriLJ639; ILR1961Bom195
ORDER1. This is an application fifed by the original party No. 2 against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Ahmednagar, in a revision application against the order passed by the Taluka Magistrate, Shrirampur in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that there were disputes between party No. 1 and party No. 2 as regards the ownership of certain lands which admittedly belonged to one Limba, who was the husband of the original party No. 1. This Limba died some time in 1953 leaving the original party No. 1 as his heir, but it was contended by the original party No. 2 that the deceased had passed a sale deed in respect of those lands in his favour only a day before his death and that he had also delivered possession of those lands to him. On the other hand, the original party No. 1, the widow of Limba, contended that she was entered in the record of rights as the successor to the deceased Limba in respect of those lands and that she was in pos...
Pandurang Hari Jadhav Vs. Shankar Maruti Todkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR873
Naik, J. 1. This revision application raises an interesting question under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948). In truth, it presents one more riddle demanding solution from this Court, The circumstances giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows: Survey Nos. 49/2 and 32/3, which belong to the petitioner, are situated within the limits of the Municipal Borough,Kolhapur. Opponent No. 1 took those lands on lease in 1954 for a period of eleven months. Again on May 24, 1955, he passed another rent note for a further period of eleven months in favour of the petitioner. On December 9, 1955, the petitioner gave a notice terminating the tenancy and calling upon the opponents to vacate the lands with effect from March 31, 1956. It may be mentioned that opponent No. 2 was a sub-tenant of opponent No. 1. On April 10, 1956, the petitioner (who will hereafter he called the plaintiff) filed a suit against the opponent...
Chandbi Ex Vs. Bandesha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom121; (1960)62BOMLR866; 1961CriLJ470; ILR1961Bom191
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Osmanabad with a recommendation that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was bad in law and that it should be altered so as to allow maintenance to the wife only for a period of three lunar months from 6-4-1959, the date of the filing of the written statement by the husband. 2. The parties to these proceedings are Maliomedans. It appears that the wife made an application for maintenance to the learned Magistrate under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, The husband resisted the application mainly on three grounds; (1). that he had already divorced the wife about 30 years ago and that he was not liable to maintain her; (2) that there was no neglect or refusal on his part to maintain her; and (3) that he had not sufficient income for giving separate maintenance to her. The learned Magistrate found in favour of the wife on all the three grounds and granted a sum of Rs. 10/- per month as maintenance...
Garment Cleaning Works Vs. Babulal Shamlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ612Bom
ORDER1. These four applications have been made by the Garment Cleaning Works, Bombay, against the four employees named in them. These employees were chargesheeted on the came day for the same set of facts, one common departmental enquiry was held against them and dismissal orders in identical terms were served on them. The learned advocates requested me to hear the four applications together and make one composite order. I have agreed to do so. 2. The charges levelled against the opponents were : (1) Acting in a manner subversive of discipline and insubordination towards the partner, Sri Padia. (2) Instigating the workmen in the Gowalia Tank Factory to go on an illegal strike which was also unjustified. (3) Taking part in an illegal strike which was unjustified (Ex. C. 2). The departmental inquiry was held on 14 January 1960 and 23 January 1960 and dismissal orders were served on the four opponents on 28 January 1960. In the order it was also stated : 'Along with this order you are i...
The Central Provinces Transport Services Vs. the State Transport Autho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR863
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner is the Central Provinces Transport Services (to which we shall hereinafter refer as CPTS) which is under the ownership of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Before the States Reorganisation Act came into force, the CPTS as well as the Provincial Transport Services (to which we shall hereinafter refer as PTS) were owned by the former Govern meat of Madhya Pradesh and operated in Madhya Pradesh State in their respective areas. After the reorganisation of the States the CPTS were allotted to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the PTS were allotted to the Government of the State of Bombay.2. Permit No. 31 of 1955 was issued in favour of the CPTS by the Regional Transport Authority, enabling them to ply their buses on the Nagpur-Ramtek road on bazar days. This permit was granted for three years on March 15, 1955. On January 10, 1958, the CPTS made an application for renewal of their permit to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur. That application was granted o...
Murlidhar Nathu Chaudhari Vs. Nageshwar Vishnu Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR417
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. In this case opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, had been granted a certificate under Section 88C(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, stating that his income does not exceed Rs. 1,500 a year. In arriving at the finding that the opponent's income did not exceed Rs. 1,500, the Prant Officer did not take into consideration the income realised by the opponent's sons, who are now all in service and are serving at different places. Mr. Divekar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, has contended that the Prant Officer was wrong in not taking into consideration the salaries, which the sons of the opponent were getting We do not think that we can accept this argument. Sub-section (1) of Section 88C provides thatNothing in Sections 32 to 32R...shall apply to lands leased by any person if...the total annual income of such person...does not exceed Rs. 1,500.The income, which is to be taken into consideration for purposes of Sec...
Wasu Pillai Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom114; (1960)62BOMLR857; 1961CriLJ466; ILR1961Bom183
Gokhale, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused Wasu Pillai against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon him by the Court of Session for Greater Bombay in Case No. 50, IV Sessions 1959, on 15th September 1959. The charge against the accused was that on the night between the 14th and 15th April 1959 he committed the murder of one Krishna Pillai by intentionally causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case against the accused is that, he was a boarder in Shanmukh Vilas Hotel situated in Family Building on Dr. Batliwala Road, Patel, Bombay. Is is a boarding and lodging hotel and owned by one Shankaran Nair. The accusedwas its boarder for the last 16 years and is the proprietor's sister's daughter's son. The deceased Krishna Pillai who hailed from the native place of Shankaran Nair was also a boarder in the same hotel. One Bhaskaran,...
Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay Vs. Baxi (J.A.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1960
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ326Bom
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner is a registered union of workmen employed in the Rajkamal Silk Mills, the respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). About July 1958 the weavers employed in this mill were required to clean used weft pirns. They declined to do so as they stated that this was not a part of their regular duties. Subsequently, five workers were proceeded with on the charge of wilful insubordination or disobedience in refusing to clean the pirns. Wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of a superior amounts to misconduct under Clause (a), of standing order 21. After the inquiry was completed the above five workers were dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was challenged before the labour court. The labour court came to the conclusion that the inquiry held was legal and proper, that the workers were not justified in refusing to clean the pirns, that the finding with regard to their misconduct was correct and that the ...
Vishwanath Vishnupant Pagnis Vs. Prabhakar Raghunath Karekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR950
Naik, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order of the Assistant Judge, Kolhapur. The opponents made an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, under Section 11 of the Act for fixing standard rent for the suit premises. The ' trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 100 p.m. exclusive of any permitted increases. From that decision, the opponents went in revision to the District Court and the latter transferred the revision for hearing to the Assistant Judge, who eventually decided the matter by fixing standard rent at Rs. 70 p.m. exclusive of electricity charges. It is against that order that the petitioner has come up in revision.2. Mr. Walawalkar, for the petitioner, has raised a preliminary objection contending that the Assistant Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the revision application under Section 29 of the Act. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »