Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR62
Tambe, J.1. This is defendant's application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. On May 4, 1957, opponent Kesharbai filed a civil suit against the defendant Jairam in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Achalgur, praying that she be restored to possession of the field in suit. In that suit' the defence raised was that he was a protected lessee within the meaning of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, hereinafter referred to as the Leases Act, and he is, therefore, not liable to be ejected. He also made an application under Section 16A of the Leases Act praying that reference be made to the revenue Court for decision of the issue as to whether he is a protected lessee or not. That application, was allowed, and reference was made on October 8, 1957. During the pendency of that reference before the revenue Court the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kutch Area) Act, Act XCIX of 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act, ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR351
Tambe, J.1. The applicants were indebted to opponent No. 1 Kondba. They made an application before the Debt Relief Court and the Debt Relief Court after scaling down the debts on March 17, 1941, fixed their liability at Rs. 1,577-8-0 and ordered that the applicants should pay the aforesaid amount by annual instalments of Rs. 159-12-0, first instalment being payable on March 1,1942. The applicants paid instalments regularly upto March 1, 1946. Thereafter they failed to make payments and, therefore, opponent No. 1 Kondba applied to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 13(3) of the C.P. & Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act for requisite certificate. On July 1, 1953, the Deputy Commissioner made an order under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 that the order of the Debt Relief Court fixing instalments shall cease to have effect and the balance remaining due shall be recovered as if a decree. Opponent No. 1 then on the basis of this order took out execution seeking to recover the balance of Rs, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom258; (1961)63BOMLR54; ILR1961Bom203
1.These three appeals arise from orders in execution proceedings. As the proceedings were disposed of in the Court below by a common judgment, these appeals can also be decided here by one and the same judgment. The circumstances leading to the execution petitions, which have given rise to these appeals, may be briefly stated as follows; The appellants (who will hereafter be referred to as the decree-holders) obtained an instalment, decree against the respondents (who will hereafter be referred to as the judgment-debtors) for a sum ot Rs. 30,000/- on 22-10-1935. The decretal amount Was payable by annual instalments of Rs. 2,000/-. There was a default clause, which provided that on the failure of the judgment-debtors to pay three instalments the decree-holders were at liberty to en-force the payment of the entire amount due till then. The first instalment became payable on 28thTeer 1346 F. (May, 1937). It appears that three instalments fell into arrears by May 1939. The decree-holders, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)IILLJ459Bom
1. This industrial dispute was referred to me under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Labour and Social Welfare Department order No. AJS. 3559-H, dated 12 November, 1959. The demands of the workmen relate to (1) salary scales of employees in octroi, mechanical, water-works, establishment departments and other branches; (2) officiating allowance; (3) adjustment; (4) refund of pay to five employees; and (5) cycle allowance to valvemen. 2. Sri A. V. Ghate, advocate for the municipality, has raised a preliminary objection that the employees of the octroi department are not workmen because that department is not an activity of the municipality which may be called to be analogous to 'industry.' On behalf of the workmen Sri B. G. Naik examined one Chandrakant Neminath Shete, an octroi clerk. He has stated that octroi clerks are transferred to other departments and clerks from other departments are transferred to octroi department. He has given three such instances inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom254; (1961)63BOMLR48; ILR1961Bom45
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant in a suit being suit No. 1588 of 1954 against the order passed by the learned City Civil Court Judge on the chamber summons which wss taken out by the defendant on 26th February 1958 dismissing it with costs.2. In the suit which was filed by the plaintiff respondent against the defendant an ex parte decree was passed on 18th November 1957. The defendant thereafter took out a notice of motion for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he was unable for sufficient reasons to attend the hearing of the case in the circumstances set out in the affidavit in support of thenotice of motion. That notice of motion was disposed of by the City Civil Court on 29th January 1958, and the order that was passed on the notice of motion by the learned Judge of that Court was that on the defendant depositing Rs. 1,500 within four weeks and on paying a sum of Rs. 100 being the costs thrown away on 18th November1957 and a sum of Rs. 75, being the costs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)IILLJ455Bom; (1960)IILLJ455Bom
1. This is a complaint under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contentions in the complaint are briefly as follows. There are two groups of scavengers in the Sangli City Municipality. Most of the scavengers who come from the south are members of one particular union which is favoured by a councillor belonging to the majority party in the municipality. The complainant, though a South Indian scavenger, refused to join that union and joined the General Workers' Union and persuaded others also to join it. Ever since then the complaint was harassed by the municipal officers. Some time in September 1959, the complainant was chargesheeted and placed under suspension. He was deliberately not paid subsistence allowance although the municipal rules lay down that such allowance should be paid to suspended employees. Similarly, although the rules lay down that no employee should be suspended longer than three months, the complainant was kept under suspension for nearly five months. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom124; (1960)62BOMLR921; 1961CriLJ628
Mudholkar, J.1. The appellant Kishansingh who is the Sar Panch of mouza Pipri, tahsil Warora, District Chanda, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Chanda, for offences of Criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of five Money Orders received by him and also for committing forgery under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of three Money Orders out of these five.2. It is common ground that one Y. N. Kamble who was the Head Master of the primary school at Pipri was working as the Branch Post Master at Pipri in addition to his duties as Head Master. After his transfer sometime in the year 1958, the appellant worked there as the Branch Post Master. No formal order appointing him as Branch Post Master was however issued till 31-8-1959 beforewhich date the appellant had ceased to work as Branch Post Master. By virtue of this order the appellant was appointed to work as Branch Post Master retrospectively from 30-6-1957 to 6-11-1958 on a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR853
S.M. Shah, J.1. This revision application has been filed by the accused against the order dismissing his appeal passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Thana, which appeal was filed by him against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Thana for an offence under Section 85(1)(i) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 only, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days.2. The case for the prosecution was that on June 29, 1959, a motor accident on the Bombay-Agra road was reported to the Thana Town Police Station and the police constable Mane attached to that police station started to go to the scene of the accident at about 5-30 P.M. on that day. On his way to the scene of the accident, the police constable saw a touring car standing near the State Transport Workshop on the same road and found that that car had met with an acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom263; (1960)62BOMLR849; 1961CriLJ641; ILR1960Bom946
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the applicant against the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, East Khan-desh, dismissing his revision application preferred against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amalner Division, allowing the application made by opponent No. 1 by which ho claimed reliefs under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It appears that on 21-11-57 Opponent No. I Onkar Vyankat Patil, applied to the District Magistrate, East Khandesh at Jalgaon complaining that the flour mill owned by the petitioner Murlidliar Bhila Patil and which was installed close to his house was a cause of nuisance to him as also to the other residents in the locality. He alleged that the operation o the flour mill created vibrations and those vibrations were likely to cause danger to the people residing nearby.3. After due enquiry into the allegations made by the Opponent No. 1, the Additional District Magistrate, East Khandesh at Jalga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom167; (1960)62BOMLR880; ILR1960Bom941
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application by a sales tax practitioner praying for the issue of a writ against the State of Bombay prohibiting it from expending public funds for the defence of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax in the State of Bombay. This petition was preferred before the reorganization of the State of Bombay.2. The petitioner's contention is that the State of Bombay is not justified in expending public monies for the defence of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are being prosecuted at the petitioner's instance before a Magistrate in Nagpur for an offence under Section 500 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner concedes that the grant or assistance to Government servants who have to institute or defend civil or criminal proceedings in respect of acts done by them in the discharge of their official duties is permissible under rule 189 of the Law Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules and Rules for the Conduct of...
Tag this Judgment!