Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR113
Desai, J. 1. This is an arbitration suit, filed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, for filing of an award dated May 22, 1952, made by the Board of Appeal of the London Oil and Tallow Trades Association directing the respondents-defendants to pay 5,600 to the petitioners-plaintiffs and for a decree in terms of that award and interest and costs.2. Apart from the further facts to which I will have to refer whilst dealing with the contentions made by the parties the only facts which need be noticed are as follows:-By a contract made in duplicate and dated October 21, 1950, the defendants agreed to sell and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase from the defendants 100 tons of Indian Crude ground-nut oil on the terms and conditions contained in the contract. One of the terms in the contract was that 'all other terms find conditions as per L.O.T.T.A. contract'. The letters 'L.O.T.T.A.' admittedly refer to the London Oil and Tallow Trades Asso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom23; (1961)63BOMLR307; ILR1961Bom463
ORDER(1) This revision application raises a somewhat important point at to the interpretation of S. 31 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, which was introduced by the Court-fees (Bombay Amendment Act XII of 1954. The question arises in this was Petitioner No. 1, Lachibai, had filed a suit in forma pauperis against petitioner No. 2, Hiralal, and one Gulab, for a declaration that a certain document dated 5th December 1956 taken by Hiralal with regard to 1/3rd share in certain property and the right of defendant to get an amount of Rs. 20 per mensem was void and not binding on the plaintiff., and for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in certain house property situated in the Cantonment at Poona, and for other reliefs. The application for permission to file the suit in forma pauperis was presented on 14th December 1956 personally by the petitioner No. 1, lachibai, and that application was numbered as Pauper Miscellaneous Application No. 794 of 1956. It appears that, in this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)ILLJ162Bom
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shelat in Miscellaneous Petition No. 361 of 1958. The appellant is the union of employees in various companies in Bombay. One P. S. Rao was employed with Dumex, Ltd., carrying on business at Bombay. His precise designation was 'tead leader.' On 4 March, 1957 he was served with a letter in which certain charges were preferred against him by the employers and he was suspended from work with immediate effect. A departmental enquiry was held in respect of those charges on 7 March, 1957. He denied the charges, but the officer holding the inquiry held them established. He was intimated accordingly by a letter dated 15 March, 1957. He was also informed by that letter that it had been decided to dismiss him from service with immediate effect. According to the union, the departmental inquiry held against Rao was improperly and illegally held and consequently the order of dismissal was bad in law. The aforesaid Rao is alleged by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1961]12STC562(Bom)
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Shelat in Miscellaneous Petition No. 232 of 1958. The relevant facts are as follows :- Prior to the 23rd of May, 1957, one Tolaram Assanmal, the father of the appellant, was carrying on business at Colaba, Bombay, in the name and style of Tolaram's. He died on the 23rd of May, 1957. It is common ground that even during the lifetime of his father, the appellant was managing the business of Tolaram's. On the 31st of October, 1953, the Sales Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Bombay, served a notice in Form XXXIV under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, on the appellant saying that he wished to satisfy himself that the returns filed by the firm in respect of the quarter ending 31st March, 1953, were correct and complete, and asked the firm to produce evidence in support of those returns. In compliance with the notice the appellant produced the required evidence. It would appear that subsequent to this the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Bra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR799
Mody, J.1. His Lordship after dealing with the question whether the petition was barred by limitation, proceeded. Another point raised by Mr. Shah as a preliminary point was based on the provisions of Rule 3 of Chap. XXXII. of the Rules of this High Court applicable on its Original Side, The Rules in Chap. XXXII have been framed under Section 110 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The said Rule 3 provides that all appeals under the said Act shall be by way of a petition supported by an affidavit. In this case the petitioners have filed a petition and also an affidavit in support. Mr. Shah, however, contended that this affidavit is not a proper affidavit, that the said Rule 3 has not been complied with and the petition should, therefore, be dismissed. The petition has been signed and verified by Mr. R.A. Shah, a solicitor of this Court, as the duly constituted attorney of the petitioners. Mr. Shah has stated in the verification clause that what is stated in the petition is st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1961]12STC405(Bom)
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioners were partners of a firm, which used to carry on business at Parbhani and Adilabad. The firm was registered as a dealer under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act. Under section 12 of the Act, every dealer was required to submit a return relating to his turnover. The petitioners did not submit any return in respect of the period 27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, decided to assess the firm to the best of his judgment under section 12(3) of the Act. Before doing so he issued a notice to the petitions' firm. The first hearing before the Sales Tax Officer was on 2nd February, 1956. The petitioners did not appear before him. The case was then adjourned 13 times, but the petitioners did not appear. The Sales Tax Officer then estimated the turnover of the petitioners and made an order for assessment assessing the firm to tax of about Rs. 1,56,000. This order was made on 3rd January, 1957. The petitioners appealed again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom184; (1960)62BOMLR1026; [1961(2)FLR22]; ILR1961Bom95; (1961)ILLJ38Bom
Chainani, C. J. 1. The petitioner is employed as a coolie in the Mains Department of the Bombay Gas Works belonging to the respondents. At the Gas Works, to which I will hereafter refer as the factory, gas is manufactured. This gas is supplied to consumers through pipes, which are connected to a storage lank. The duties of the petitioner are to excavate and dig trenches for the purpose of laying pipes, through which gas is transported to the customers. The petitioner does not, therefore, work within the premises of the factory, but outside at the places where the pipes are to be laid. The petitioner has been issued an identity card by the Chief Engineer of the factory. His attendance is marked at the place of his work, but his wages arc paid to him at the factory. If he wants leave, he has to go to the factory and apply to the Mains Overseer, whose office is situated there. The petitioner had worked overtime on certain days between December 1956 and November 1957. His remuneration cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR106
Gokhale, J.1. An interesting point of law has been raised in this revision application by Mr. H. R. Gokhale, and that point is whether an order passed under Section 17 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act) is an executable order, and it arises under these circumstances.2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of a portion of the suit house in Gurwar Peth at Karad. Opponent No. 1, Laxminarayan Chunilal Lahoti, was the tenant in respect of these premises. Opponents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the landlords. These landlords filed Suit No. 482 of 1946 for recovering possession from the tenant Laxminarayan Lahoti on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by them for their personal occupation. The suit resulted in a decree in favour of the landlords. It appears, however, that the landlords did not in fact occupy these premises, and opponent No. 1, Laxminarayan Lahoti, therefore, filed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR749
Kotval, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts and dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.]2. Turning to the question of sentence, Mr. Phadke has raised a point with particular reference to the case of the applicant Shankar. Against this accused, the prosecution sought to establish previous convictions. They were convictions in the years 1956, 1957 and 1958 under Section 6(1) (a) of the C. P. and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938. Mr. Phadke urged that considering the provisions of Section 65, of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, these convictions cannot be taken into account for the purpose of the application of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) thereof, which prescribed enhanced penalties for a second offence and a third and subsequent offences. The contention is that a perusal of the whole section indicates that the offences contemplated under Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 65 are offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and not under any other Act or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom239; (1961)63BOMLR289; ILR1961Bom224
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Yeot-mal, dated the 26th June 1958, removing the appellant Bhagwan from the trusteeship and sarpanchship of a public religious endowment known as Shri Dutt Deosthan, Kalamb, tahsil and district Yeotmal. The facts preceding the application dated 19-10-1957 upon which the order under appeal came to be passed arc not in dispute. On 3-6-1928 one Kasabai widow of Krishnaji Gore executed a deed of trust. By that deed she dedicated a field, survey No. 39/1, area 10 acres 32 gunthas, of KashaKalamb, to the temple of Shri Dutt Dcosthan. By the same deed she appointed five persons including the appellant Bhagwan as trustees. Of the other persons appointed as trustees, one D. B. Sarda is no longer alive. The principal trustee and the Sarpanch was the appellant Bhagwan. One of thetrustees, the respondent No. 2 Dattatraya, resigned on 31-1-1932. 2. In 1949 this Dattatraya and one Namdeo Narayan Gore tiled civil sui...
Tag this Judgment!