Mumbai Court September 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.
Hiralal Bablisa Shroff Vs. Ramdas Purshottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom284; (1961)63BOMLR169
1. This is a revision application against the order of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay refusing the petitioners' application for amendment of their plaint. On 18th August 1955 the petitioners filed Suit No. 2272/11476 of 1955 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the defendant Opponent to recover a sum of Rs. 2703-1-0 inclusive of interest. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs had acted as commission agents in respect of certain transactions with the defendant and in connection with those transactions there was an account of the defendant In the account books of the plaintiffs. At the foot of the said account, there remained a balance of Rs. 2,435-3-0 due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs and the particulars of that account were annexed to the plaint. The defendant, according to the plaintiffs, failed and neglected to pay the said balance in spite of repeated demands and ultimately plaintiffs, through their advocate's letters dated 8th December 195...
The Secretary, Mahad Municipality Vs. the Divisional Controller, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR174
Patel, J.1. These three Revisional Applications arise out of appeals to the Magistrate against Municipal assessment for the purpose of consolidated house tax. The order made by the Magistrate, Mahad, has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge at Kolaba. The Applications are in respect of assessments for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, respectively. The original appellant before the Magistrate is the Divisional Controller, Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay, and is now the opponent and the original opponent before the Magistrate and now the petitioner is in all cases the Municipality, Mahad, governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. I will employ their original nomenclature to avoid confusion.2. The premises in question which are rated by the Municipal authority were built in the year 1958. They consist of (1) platforms for the various buses and passages etc., (2) ladies' rooms, (3) retiring rooms, (4) drivers' and conductors' rooms, (5) canteen with necess...
international Tyre Service (Private), Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (Excluding ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ121Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(2)AWARD1. This is a reference by the Government of Bombay under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the adjudication of a dispute between International Tyre Service (Private), Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen (excluding clerical staff) employed under it at Bombay over the following demand :- 'Every workmen should be paid adequate and unconditional bonus for each of the financial years 1958 and 1959 subject to a minimum of three months' wages for each of the years.' The reference was made by Government on the joining application of the company and the Engineering and General Employees' Union Bombay. 2. In the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workmen by the union it is stated that the company has a long standing of 28 years. Prior to 1948 it was a partnership concern. The company deals in tyre repairs, servicing of tyres, vulcanizing, tube repairing, etc. It has up-to-date machinery and its financial posit...
Manikchand Sarupchand Shah and anr. Vs. Gangadhar Shankar Shete and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom288; (1961)63BOMLR163
1. This is a Second Appeal against an order passed in favour of respondent No. 1 Gangadhar awarding him actual Possession of a house bearing C. S. No. 120 in Vetal Peth, Poona City, from the appellants as well as respondent No. 2. This house originally belonged to respondent No. 1 Gangadhar. On 18th March 1925 the house was mortgaged with one Punamchand, but the equity of redemption came to be sold and purchased by one Laxminarayan on 11th June 1928. oN 12th July 1929. Laxminarayan sold the equity of redemption to the mortgagee Punamchand who thus claimed to have become owner of the House. On 22nd July 1935, Punamchand sold the house to one Dhanraj Hajarimal, and on 18th November 1941 Dhanraj sold it to Kesarichand Lalvani, respondent No. 2 in this appeal. It appears, however, that though the equity of redemption was sold as early as 1928, the possession of the house continued with Gangadhar, the original owner, and that is why Kesarichand Lalwani filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1602 of 1...
Mahomed Ebrahim Mahomedi Vs. Essak Haji Alimahomed Haji Sumar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom169; (1961)63BOMLR798
Mudholkar, Actg. C.J.(1) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice K. K. Desai in suit No. 277 of 1954.(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had agreed under a deed dated 21st February 1949 to sell to the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, certain property situate in the city of Bombay for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-. Under the agreement the plaintiff paid to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 a sum or Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money. The defendants had agreed to make out a marketable title free from all claims and demands. The plaintiff thereafter through his attorneys repeatedly called upon the defendants Nos 1 to 4 to make out a marketable title to the property but the defendants failed to make out such a title. Ultimately, the plaintiff by his attorney's letter dated 21st August 1951 put an end to the agreement for sale and called upon the defendants Nos 1 to 4 to return the earnest money of Rs. 15,000/- with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum f...
Mongibai Hariram Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR1077
S.M. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by Mr. Justice Mody in a writ petition, being Miscellaneous Petition No. 282 of 1959, filed by the petitioners, praying for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the respondents, directing them to cancel or withdraw the order of requisition dated September 10, 1959, and the order of allotment dated September 10/12, 1959, and/or to forbear from executing or enforcing the said orders or taking any further proceedings thereunder, and for a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus in similar terms, as also for a writ of certiorari and/or prohibition as prayed for in prayers (c) and (d) of the petition.2. The petitioners are the Trustees in respect of the premisses in question and as such Trustees they are the owners of those premises, which are a part of the immoveable property known as Kutchi House situated at Brahmanwada Road, Matunga, Bombay. One P. S. Nambiar was a ...
Shantilal Uttamram Mehta Vs. Dhanji Kanji Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom203; (1961)63BOMLR69; 1961CriLJ66; ILR1961Bom248
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant with the leave of the Court from an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, III Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No. 327/S of 1959.2. The complainant Shantilal Uttamram Mehta is the General Manager of Messrs. Parte Products Manufacturing Company Limited. The company manufactures biscuits and confectionery, which are sold in the market on a large scale. In February 1958 the complainant Shantilal Uttamram Mehta received reports that biscuits were being manufactured and wrapped in wrappers which, were counterfeit of the wrappers used by Messrs. Parle Products and were being sold in the market. The complainant lodged a complaint On 26th March. 1958 and on 15th May 1958 he- obtained an. order for raiding the shop of Dhanji and Company. That shop is owned by accused No. 1 and was being managed by accused No. 2. Sub-Inspector Vaidya of the C.I.D. raided the shop. Accused No. 2 was present in the shop. In the cou...
H.M. Khatri and Co. Vs. their Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ605Bom
1. This industrial dispute was referred to me under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under No. A.J.K. 1060, dated 31 March, 1960, of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay. 2. This concern was established in 1949. It is a partnership firm with two partners. It manufactures brassiere of various types. For that purpose it engages daily-rated tailors and piece-rated tailors. It has also a cutter who along with one of the partners cuts cloth into different sizes. The cut pieces are then distributed among the tailors. Stitching charges for the different types of brassiere are different. Every one is paid his wages on Saturdays. The piece-rated tailors get according to the quantity and type of brassiere they stich. Ironing and packing is done by daily-rated helpers. In May 1959 the union sent a charter of demands to the firm and there was a settlement in the office of the conciliation officer. The question whether the piece-rated workers were '...
Bombay Union of Journalists and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ727Bom
Mudholkar, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Justice Sri K.K. Desai in Miscellaneous Petition No. 426 of 1958. That was a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which petitioners 2 and 3 had challenged the legality of their retrenchment by respondent 2, the Indian National Press, Bombay (Private), Ltd. The first appellant is the Bombay Union of Journalists and it joined in the petition apparently because a question of principle affecting working journalists as a whole was involved in the petition.2. The relevant facts are as follows: The second appellant Smt. Mukherji was appointed on the staff of the Indian National Press, Bombay, on a salary of Rs. 500 per month with effect from 1 January 1955. On 30 November 1957 she was served with a notice of termination of services with effect from 1 December 1957. The notice stated that the management in consultation with the editor had decided to retrench her services: It further stated that she would be paid three ...
Jagannath Prabhashankar Joshi and anr. Vs. Varadkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom244; (1961)63BOMLR1
Mudholkar, AG. C. J. 1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of Mr. Justice Shelat in Misc. Petition No. 81 of 1959. This petition was instituted by the two petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the first respondent, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay refusing to grant a licence to them for importing certain motor vehicle parts and accessories. 2. Prior to August, 1957, the firm of Allied (A to z) Agencies consisted of three persons as partners, those persons being two petitioners Jagannath Prabhashankar Joshi and Shankerlal Prabhashanker Trivedi and one Shantilal Karsamji Bhatt. This firm carried on business of import and export and was recognized by the Import and Export Authorities as an Established Importer. Certain quota certificates were granted to this firm for importing automobile parts and accessories. 3. By a Deed of Dissolution dated 6th of September, 1957 the firm was dissolved by the retirement of Shantilal as from the 3rd ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »