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.
Western India Vegetable Products, Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (Excluding Cler ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ609Bom
ORDER1. This is a reference under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government of Bombay for adjudication of a dispute between the Weeteren India Vegetable Products, Ltd., Amalner, and its workmen (excluding clerical and supervisory staff) over the demand by the latter for bonus for the year ending 31 March 1958. 2. The company wishes to appear through Sri Kolah. The Khandesh Vegetable Worker's Union objects under S. 36(4) of the Act to the appearance of a legal practitioner. The company's answer to this is that Sri Kolah is a member of the executive committee of the Employers' Federation of India, and therefore an officer of the association of employers and is entitled to appear under S. 36(2)(a) of the Act. That section runs as follows :- 'An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by - (a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member;' It requires that a person appearing should be ...
Laxman Shivashankar Vs. Saraswati and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom218; (1961)63BOMLR152
Tarkunde, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a suit for possession of an agricultural land filed by the plaintiff Saraswati. The trial Court held on a preliminary issue that the suit was barred by res judicata and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Court found that the suit was not so barred and remanded it to the trial Court for disposal on the remaining issues. An appeal from this order was filed in this Court and was heard by Miabhoy J., who confirmed the decision of the District Court. The present appeal was then filed on a certificate granted by Miabhoy J. under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The previous suit, the decision in which is claimed to operate as res judicata was filed in 1950 by the present plaintiff Saraswati and her stepsister Parvati. In both the suits, Saraswati claimed that the property in dispute originally belonged to the joint family consisting of her father Chanbasappa and his brother Shivshankar, and that on a partition between Chanbasap...
Desraj Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Company, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ253Bom
ORDER1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in an application made before him by one Desraj under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act). In his application, Desraj alleged that he had worked with the non-applicant company as an engineer, he was appointed in December 1955 and worked at Lucknow till 1956, from May 1956 till July 1959, he worked at Kanhan, he was then transferred to Cuttak where he worked from 19 July to 19 September. By a notice dated 19 September, his services were terminated by the company, on the ground that they were no longer required. He was offered three months' wages and other benefits due to him under he terms of agreement between him and the company. He, however, alleged that the discharge was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and claimed reinstatement. 2. The non-applicant alleged that the employer company was ...
M.G. Abrol and anr. Vs. Amichand Vallamji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom227; (1960)62BOMLR1043; ILR1961Bom318
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, and the Union of India, against the order passed by Mr. Justice K. T. Desai, by which the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs confiscating certain quantity of gold belonging to the respondents was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued requiring the Additional Collector to withdraw the order that he had passed. 2. The respondents carry on business in Bombay as dealers in bullion in partnership in the firm name and style of Messrs. Ambalal Amichand and Co. at 101 Shaikh Memon Street, Bombay. In the petition that they filed in this Court, they statedthat they were one of the leading bullion merchants in the city and used to buy and sell gold in a largo way in diverse forms. It was alleged that on 12-9-1955 respondents in the usual course of their business sent about 385 tolas of gold from their stock to the Bombay Bullion Association Refinery for the purpose of melting and assaying. It...
Dattatraya Vishnu Bhide Vs. Padmakar Mahadev Govitrikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR148
Gokhale, J.1. This is a second appeal which arises in execution proceedings.. The respondent is the landlord of certain premises in Poona, while the appellant was his tenant. The landlord filed Civil Suit No. 3927 of 1954 in the Court of Small Causes at Poona against the appellant seeking to recover possession of, the suit premises on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent due from him. The suit was decided on April 4, 1955, and the trial Court passed a decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 266-12-0 together with costs on or before May 31, 1955. In case the defendant failed to do so the plaintiff was to recover possession of the premises from the defendant and also to recover an amount of Rs. 186-12-0 in respect of rent and damages, the costs of the suit, and mesne profits at the rate of rupees 154-0 per month from the date of institution of the suit until the expiry of the period specified in Order XX, Rule 12(e), of the Civil Procedure Code with ...
Firm pyarchand Kesarimal Vs. the City of Nagpur Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR355
Tambe, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff is a firm doing business of manufacturing bidis under the name and style 'Pyarchand Kesarimal'. Its sole proprietor is one Nemkumar Kesarimal Porwal. The plaintiff firm took on rent a building belonging to one Latif Haji Kasam Kacchi, who it appears migrated to Pakistan. That building is situated in a thickly populated part of the City of Nagpur known as Maska-Satha. The plaintiff firm intended to start a bidi factory in these premises and. with that view it started making certain construction and alterations in the building. One of the constructions that the plaintiff started was of building of a tandur (i.e. furnace to bake tobacco and bidis) of the size of about 11 ft. X 22 ft. X 5 1/2ft. By March 15, 1953, the plaintiff firm started a bidi manufacturing factory in this building. The Chief Executive Officer of the defendant Corporation of the City of Nagpur, then served a notice on March ...
Arjunrao Baburao Ashtekar Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR1038
J.R. Mudholkar, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Mody in Miscellaneous Petition No. 285 of 1959 preferred by the appellant under Article 226 read with Article 311 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Bombay and was serving at Poona in the year 1957. He was attached to the Shukrawar Peth Police Chdwkey in September, 1957.3. One R.P. Gogate of Bhor made a report to the Police of Poona some time after September 8, 1957, that his son Balkrishna had left his house; at Bhor on September 8, 1957, and had taken away with him ornaments valued at Rs. 4,000. A search for Balkrishna was made in Poona, and ultimately he was traced on September 25 1957. It may be mentioned that R. P. Gogate went back to Bhor after making the report to the police regarding the disappearance of his son. Immediately after Balkrishna was traced the appellant went to Bhor in a special taxi and informed E.P. Gogate of the fact that his son had b...
Shantilal Chhotelal and Co. Vs. M.G. Abrol and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom234; (1960)62BOMLR1030; ILR1961Bom299
Mudholkar, Ag.C.J. 1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the order of Mr. Justice Shelat in Misc. Petition No. 86 of 1956. The Petitioners, who are appellants before us, had preferred a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before this Court for issuing a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay levying a fine of Rs. 49,995.75 nP. in lieu of confiscation of a consignment of scrap iron which was exported by the petitioners and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 35,000/- under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. 2. The relevant facts may be summarised as follows;-- The Petitioners are a firm of Importers and Exporters of scrap iron. They used to export about 900 tons of scrap iron per year and for that purpose they applied for and obtained a licence from the Iron and Steel Controller. This licence was issued on 7th November, 1956 and thereunder the petitioners were authorised to export 900 long tons of steel...
Bhumanna Poshalty Vs. Narayan Sadashiv Kelapure
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR269
Badkas, J.1. This judgment will govern Appeals Nos. 5 of 1959, 8 of 1959 and 9 of 1959. In all the three appeals, the parties were common. The facts giving rise to these three appeals are as follows:-The plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the three appeals, had filed Civil Suit No. 20-A of 1949 against the defendants, who are the appellants in the three respective appeals, for possession of Survey Nos. 131 and 132 of mouza Kurli and for rent for the year 1948-49 on the ground that the land in question was leased out to the defendants and that the said lease having expired the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the land. This suit was decreed by the lower Courts and the defendants had filed an appeal in the High Court which has also now been dismissed. During the pendency of this litigation in this first suit No. 20-A of 1949, the plaintiffs filed four suits claiming mesne profits for four successive years, the said mesne profits having accrued after the filing of the first s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›