Mumbai Court July 1961 Judgments
Bombay Chronical Co. Private Ltd. Vs. V.B. Potdar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom87; (1961)63BOMLR812; [1961(3)FLR384]; ILR1961Bom886; (1961)IILLJ549Bom
Chainani, C.J.(1) The petitioners the Bombay Chronicle Co. Private Ltd., were the printers and publishers of the Bombay Chronicle, an English daily which used to be published in Bombay till it discontinued its publication on 5th April 1959. Opponents Nos. 2 to 35, hereinafter referred to as the opponents are the former employees of the petitioners. On 28th September 1949 an award was made by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act. A gratuity scheme was framed under this award and the award directed the payment of gratuity to workers on the termination of their services. On 29th February 1952 the petitioners terminated the award. After the Bombay Chronicle ceased publication the opponents made applications to the Payment of Wages Authority in July and August, 1959, in which they stated that on the termination of their services they were entitled to receive gratuity under the above award, and that this had not been paid to them. They therefore praye...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ganpat Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR983a
Kotval, J.1. This is a reference by Mr. P. S. Malvankar, Sessions Judge, Akola, recommending that the order of commitment made by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur, Mr. A. S. Korane, should be quashed and that the Magistrate should be directed to proceed with the case and dispose it of according to law.2. On a complaint-filed before the trying Magistrate by one Bhaskar Shankar, the eleven opponents were tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 455, 341 and 440 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the complainant's ease that one Subhash was the tenant of the house in dispute. He died on March 23, 1960. Since there were no known heirs or relations of the deceased, the police took possession of his property which was lying unclaimed in the house and thereafter the said Bhaskar Shankar took the house on rent from June 1, 1960. The name of the owner of the house is not known and he has not been examined, but his Gumastha Ramakrishna has given evide...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Damodhar Meghare Vs. Commissioner of Nagpur Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR943
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. A Gram Panchayat was established in Mouza Gawandi, Taluq and District Yeotmal under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 (Act I of 1947). To this Panchayat, petitioner was elected a panch some time in the year 1956 prior to the date on which the States Reorganization Act came into force. Similarly, in due course, he was also elected Sarpanch of that Panchayat. It was then the policy of the Madhya Pradesh Government to give preference to Sarpanch as in the matter of appointing patels of the Village. In pursuance of this policy the petitioner was appointed the patel of that village after his election as a Sarpanch. As a result of the States Reorganization Act, Yeotmal district and some other territories became part of the newly organised State of Bombay, The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted a law in the year 1959 called the Bombay Village Panchayats Act (Act III of 1959). I...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ganpat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom165; (1961)63BOMLR983; ILR1961Bom1001
ORDER(1) This is a reference by Mr. P.S. Malvankar, Sessions Judge, Akola, recommending that the order of commitment made by the Civil Judge and judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur, Mr. A.S. Korane, should be quashed and that the Magistrate should be directed to proceed with the case and dispose it of according to law.(2) On a complaint filed before the trying Magistrate by one Bhaskar Shankar, the eleven opponents were tried for offences punishable under sections 120-B ,147,455,341 and 440 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the complanant's case that one Subhash was the tenant of the house in dispute. He died on 23-3-1960. Since there were no known heirs or relations of the deceased, the police took possession of his property which was lying unclaimed in the house and thereafter the said Bhaskar Shankar took the house on rent form 1-6-1960. The name of the owner of the house is not known and he has not been examined, but his Gumashta Ramkrishna has given evidence that the house...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Raheman D. Lambe Vs. Kulkarni R.N. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: [1962(5)FLR94]; (1962)IILLJ662Bom
Patel, J.1. Petitioner 1 in this case is an employee of the Victoria Lamp Works at Bombay. Petitioner 2 is the union of which petitioners 1 is a member. Alleging that he was in service for eleven years, and that at the time in question, i.e., on 10 November, 1960, he was earning Rs. 2-8-0 a day, that by closure notice, dated 10 October, 1960, his services along with those of others were terminated from 10 October, 1960, and no payment was made due to him under the provisions of S. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, he made an application under S. 33C(2) of the Act, for determination of the amount not due to him. This application was made to the labour court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opponent contested the application contending that the payments were already made and, in any case, the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Court framed two preliminary points for its decision as follows : '(1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to enter...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahaman D. Lambe and anr. Vs. R.N. Kulkarni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom287; (1961)63BOMLR994; ILR1961Bom994
Patel, J.(1) Petitioner No. 1 in this case is an employee of the Victoria Lamp Works, at Bombay. Petitioner No. 2 is the Union of which petitioner No. 1 is a member. Alleging that he was in service for 11 years, and that at the time in question, i.e. on the 10th of November 1960, he was earning Rs. 2-8-0 a day, that by closure notice dated 10th October 1960, his services along with that of others were terminated from 10th October 1960, and no payment was made due to him under the provisions of S. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, he made an application under S. 33-C(2) of the Act for determination of the amount due to him. This application was made to the a Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Opponent contested the application contending that the payments were already made and in any case the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Court framed two preliminary points for its decision as follows;'(1) Whether this court has jurisdictio...
Tag this Judgment!The Exchange Bank of India and Africa Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Laxmic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1961
Reported in: 1961(63)BLJR889
Chainani, C.J.1. The appellant is a Banking Company, to Exchange Bank of India and Africa Ltd. Through its liquidator. The respondent was a share-holder of the above Banking Company before it went in liquidation. On 20th February 1955 a balance order was made as regards the call liability of the respondent in respect of the shares held by him. Under this order he was called upon to pay Rs. 74,125/- to the Company. As he did not pay the amount a notice under O. 21 R. 22 was issued to him. That notice was made absolute in November 1958. On 25th February 1959 the liquidator got issued an insolvency notice under Section 9A of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This notice called upon the respondent to pay Rs. 74, 125/- or to furnish security for the payment of this sum within 35 days after service of the notice. This notice was served upon the respondent on 15th August 1959. On 14th September 1959 he took out a notice of motion for setting aside the insolvency notice. Section 11 of the P...
Tag this Judgment!Biharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. China Cotton Exporters
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom59; (1962)64BOMLR611
ORDER1. The question that is raised on 'his summons is as to whether the Commissioner appointed by this Court to whom a partnership suit is referred for the purpose to taking accounts cf the partnership is 'a Court' within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, so that where such Commissioner is prevented by death, transfer or other cause from concluding the reference, his successor may deal with the evidence recorded by the former as if it had been recorded by himself and proceed with the reference from the stage at which his predecessor had left it under the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 18 of the Code,2. It was contended by Mr. Pandya, the learned counsel for the defendants, that the office of the Commissioner was a part of this High Court and that inasmuch as by virtue of the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 49 of the Code, some of the Rules of Order 18 including Rule 15 did not apply to the Chartered High Courts' in exercise of their Ordinary or extra-ordinary original civil Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Yusuf and anr. Vs. D. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1968Bom112; (1966)68BOMLR228; ILR1966Bom420
Naik, J.(1) These four cases arise out of the petitions loaded by one Sir Mohammed Yusif and his son, Abdul Rahman against two practicing lawyers D and s for taking action against them far professional misconduct., out of these three petitions, two were filed by Sir Mohammed Yusif, one against d in his capacity as a solicitor and the other against him as an advocate and also against S as an advocate . the third petition was filed by Abdul Rahman against D as a solicitor complaining that the latter was responsible for filing false proceedings under the Administration of Evacree property Act against him and pursuing them with a view to deter him from claiming the amount that D had retained and for which he failed to render accounts to him. The two petitions filed by Sir Mohammed Yusif and Abdul Rahman against D as a solicitor were referred to a committee of the Incorporated Law Society. The latter submitted a report exonerating learned Chief Justice was not satisfied with the report and ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Anantha Krishnan (K.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ732Bom
Chinani, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 21 May 1958, the workers employed by respondent 2, the Associated Cement Companies, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, presented a charter of demands to. the company. The demands were made on behalf of the workers by the secretary of the union, respondent 1. On 23 May 1959, five out of the twenty-six demands were referred to the industrial tribunal consisting of Sri M.R. Meher, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the demands, which had been made, was for a reduction in working hours. The demand, which had been made, was as follows:Office time or working hours,--Working hours shall be from 10-30 a.m. to 5-30 p.m. on week days with one hour recess and on Saturdays, the working hours shall be from 10-30 a.m. to 1-30 p.m.2. This demand was not referred to the industrial tribunal. On 23 June 1959, a letter was addressed by Government to the general secretary of the union, in which the reasons for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »