Mumbai Court January 1962 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.
Mohanlal Chandanmal Surana Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR485
Kotval, J.1. This special civil application arises out of an order dated November 20, 1960, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur. By that; order the Tribunal purported to dispose of two revision applications, Nos. 49 and 51/TEN of 1960 pending before them. Those two revision applications .arose out of two revenue cases, Nos. 6 and 93/59(9) of 1959-60. Revenue Case No. 6 of 1959-60 arose upon a reference made under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kuteh Area) Act, 1958 (No. XCIX of 1958) by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur, in a civil suit pending before him. In that suit the right to field No. 7/1 of mouza Region in taluq Kelapur was in question.2. The field originally belonged to the petitioner Mohanlal and lie had leased it out to respondent No. 4 Rajeshwar in the agricultural year 1951-52. Then by virtue of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural. Leases Act, 1951, Rajeshwar remained in possession and cultivated the fi...
Namdeo Shrawan Lokhande Vs. Chocks Canning and Mining Ltd., Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Bom303; (1962)64BOMLR481; ILR1962Bom516; (1962)IILLJ323Bom
Kotval, J.1. The petitioner Namdeo Shrawan Lokhande was employed by opponent 1, the Chocks Canning and Mining, Ltd., Motibagh, Nagpur. He was dismissed from service by an order passed on 6 June, 1956, with effect from 1 June, 1956. The petitioner took no steps to get the order set aside under S. 16. of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, nor did he claim back-wages with six months as provided by sub-section (2) of S. 16. But the petitioner made an application to the district industrial court for a declaration that the dismissal amounted to an illegal change and that the change should be declared to be illegal. This declaration was granted to the petitioner. Consequent upon the declaration that the change was illegal, the petitioner filed an application under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the payment of Wages Authority at Nagpur claiming wages for the period from May 1956 to the end of November 1956, that is to say, the date on which he m...
Harikisan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR522
B.P. Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 11, 1961, of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), dismissing the appellant's application, under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he had prayed for a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce the petitioner in Court and to set him at liberty. This application was heard by us on January 8 and 9, 1962, and after hearing Shri A. S. Bobde for the appellant and the learned Attorney-General for the State of Maharashtra, we directed that the appellant be released forthwith, and that the reasons for our judgment will follow later. We now proceed to set out our reasons for the order passed on that day.It appears that an Order of Detention, under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was m...
Laxman Narayan Pokale Vs. Block Development Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR587
Kotval, J.1. The petitioner Laxman Narayan Pokale was a candidate for election to the Gram Pauchayat of Mouza Hmgni from ward No. 3. The Gram Panchayat was to consist of thirteen members out of which two seats were reserved for women candidates. The programme announced for the election was as follows:-(i) The last date for filing nominations was ... 22-9-1961(ii) Scrutiny of the nominations was to take place on ... 23-9-1961(iii) The last date for the withdrawal of nominations was ... 4-10-1961 &(iv) The election was scheduled to be held on ... 18-10-1961.2. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 10 had filed their nominations; but by an order passed on September 23, 1961, respondent No. 2, who was the Returning Officer for the election rejected the nomination, of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred before respondent No. 1, the Block Development Officer, but it was also rejected on September 27, 1961, with the result that the petitioner's nomination stood rejected. It is against ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›