Mumbai Court November 1963 Judgments
Vithoba Maruti Chavan Vs. Taki Bilgrami S.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: 1964MhLJ717
Gokhale, J.1. A rather interesting question relating to the scope and ambit of the powers of the labour court under S. 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, arisen in this petition. The petitioner was employed as a head jobber in respondent 2-mills and had put in about 20 years of continuous service. He was chargesheeted by respondent 2-mills on the allegation that he had slapped one Shivappa Hombal on 24 April 1960. On account of this alleged behaviour of the petitioner it was contended by the mills that this conduct amounted to misconduct under the standing orders which were applicable and which were determinative of the relation between the mills and their employees. It is common ground that the standing orders were settled by the Commissioner of Labour under S. 35(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'). Standing order 23 enumerates 'acts or omissions constituting misconduct.' Clause (1) of standing order 23 contempla...
Tag this Judgment!Vithoba Maruti Chavan Vs. S.Taki Bilgrami and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom81; (1964)66BOMLR426; ILR1964Bom778
Gokhale, J.(1) A rather interesting question relating to the scope and ambit of the powers of the Labour Court under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, arises in this petition. The petitioner was employed as a head jobber in the respondent No.2 Mills and had put in about 20 years of continuous service. He was charge-sheeted by the respondent No. 2 Mills on the allegation that he had slapped one Shivappa Hombal on the 24th of April 1960. On account of this alleged behaviour of the petitioner it was contended by the Mills that this conduct amounted to misconduct under the standing orders which were applicable and which were determinative of the relations between the Mills and their employees. It is common ground that the standing orders were settled by the Commissioner of Labour under S. 35(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'). Standing order 23 enumerates 'acts of omissions constituting misconduct'. Clause (1...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Madhukar Gopinath Lolge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1967Bom61; (1965)67BOMLR226; 1967CriLJ167; ILR1965Bom257
(1) This is an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of Madhukar Gopinath Lolge, a tonga driver, of Ahmednagar, under S. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, III Court, Ahmednagar.(2) The Respondent, Madhukar, was charge-sheeted before the Judicial magistrate, First Clss, Ahmednagar, on the accusation that on 13th September 1962, early in the morning, at about 2-30 O'clock, the respondent, Madhukar, and his co-accused, Khandu, were found going on a bicycle, carrying illicitly distilled country liquor in two bladders having a total quantity of 24 bottles. They were thus charged with having committed offences under Ss. 66(1)(b) and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.(3) Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The respondent Madhukar stated in his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had been falsely implicated in this case by the Police Inspector Pawar, that he was in the service of one Vithal Hari Legate ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Dhondu Dalvi Vs. Vithaldas Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom251; (1964)66BOMLR277; 1964MhLJ397
Patel, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a summary suit, and the important question that arises is : whether the power of the Court to set aside a decree is limited to a case in which the defendant has failed to appear in answer to the summons for judgment or is wider? 2. Provisions relating to summary suits are contained in Order 37. Rule 1, Clause (a) provides that the order shall apply to the High Courts at Madras and Bombay and enables the High Court to apply the same to any other Court. Rule 2 Sub-rule (1) enunciates classes of suits which can be filed as Summary Suits and prey cribes the mannec of presentation of plaints. Such suits can be filed in respect of bills of exchange, hundis or promissory notes. In this state the scoops of the order is widened and is applied to ail suits in which the plain-tiff seeks to recover a debt or money payable on demand, with or without interest, arising out of a contract. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Coffee Workers' Co-operative Stores Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bachoobai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1967Bom210; (1964)66BOMLR338; ILR1964Bom484
Patel, J.(1) This is a revisional application, which arises out of a suit instituted by the owner of the property against her tenant and others whom she alleged to be sub-tenants. The plaintiff is Opponent No. 1 Opponent No. 2 is the original tenant and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are original defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who came subsequent to the creation of the tenancy in favour of Opponent No. 2 The plaintiff alleged that the premises were given to defendant No. 1 as a tenant at a fixed rental of Rs. 100/- per month without electric and water charges. The front portion of the premises was to be used as a shop and the rear as residence. She alleged that defendant No. 1 had sublet the property to defendant No. 2 since about May 1958, that she learnt in July 1958 that large alterations were carried out to property and she alleged, on an assumption, that defendant No, 1 had carried out the alterations. She further alleged that defendant No. 1 was making profit out of the subletting and on the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajpati Sudama Panday Vs. Taj Mohamed Rustom Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR258; 1964MhLJ390
Patel, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded. The learned Judges then addressed themselves to the question as to whether the notice was valid. They construed Sections 10 and 12 of the Kent Act to mean, relying on a judgment of their own Court that before a notice is given under Section 12 by a landlord for termination of tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent and permitted increases, under Section 10, the landlord must terminate the agreement regarding the contractual rent and demand the increases and it is only thereafter that he can issue a notice under Section 12. As there was no prior notice in the present case, they held that the claim was excessive. They also observed that the increase in municipal taxes was on. the rateable value while the landlords had claimed the increases on the full amount of rent. They, therefore, held that the notice was bad in law. They allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. It is this judgment that is sought to be r...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnabai Purshottam Asar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom267; (1964)66BOMLR341; 1964CriLJ644; [1964(9)FLR27]
Chandrachud, J. 1. An order of conviction under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, read with Rule 3 A of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950, is being challenged by this appeal The main question which arises in the appeal is as regards the true construction of Section 85 of the Factories Act The question is whether a person in the position of the accused, who has no control over or interest in the manufacturing process earned on in the factory and who is not concerned, directly or indirectly, with the engagement of the workers who work in the factory, is compellable to comply with the diverse requirements of the Factories Act. 2. An open plot of land belonging to the Port Trust was taken on lease by the accused Purshottamdas Ranchod-das He constructed sheds over the plot and in the year 1908 he started a factory therein called the Sunderdas Saw Mills The factory was closed down or the 1st of April 1957 and though the Stale has sought to suggest that the closure was a mere camouflage, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Dhawan and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Circle Ii, Nagpur and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC292(Bom)
Kotval, J.1. This is a petition by certain persons against whom recovery of arrears of sales tax is sought to be made under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947). It appears that the late Basantlal Ramsaran Dhawan was doing business at Nagpur under the name and style 'Laxmi Stores, Residency Road, Sardar, Nagpur'. As such he was a registered dealer for the purposes of sales tax, the registration number being SS/24. He passed away on 28th January, 1959, yet without any notice being issued an assessment was made for the period 1st January, 1958, to 31st December, 1959, as a result of which the 'Laxmi Stores' was made liable to pay Rs. 3,785-03 nP. as sales tax and a penalty of Rs. 52-00. For the period 1st January, 1959, to 14th May, 1959, the business was assessed to sales tax at Rs. 1,375-62 nP. and a penalty of Rs. 340-00. It will be noticed that part of the later period is after the death of Basantlal on 28th January, 1959. It appears that the entire proceedings taken ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›