Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom21; (1964)66BOMLR551; ILR1965Bom96
(1) This appeal arises out of an application by the parents of a boy of six, by name Arthur Beter, for compensation on account of the death of that boy alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1.(2) The learned Tribunal computed the claim on three heads :(I) Rs. 250/- for pain and suffering (ii) Rs. 1000/- for loss of services and (iii) Rs. 5,200/- for loss of expectation of life, and rounded up the total by awarding Rs. 6,000/- with costs. The application was filed by the father and mother together. The opponent No.1 as also the Insurance Company have appealed.(3) The first point that is raised before me is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It arises under the following circumstances : The accident occurred at about 10-45 a.m. on 16th December 1958. The Tribunal was constituted on the 1st of December 1949 and the present application was made on the 14th of December 1959. It is argued that since the application was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964(9)FLR411]
1. This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act XXXIV of 1948), from an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay. The question which arises in the appeal is whether the appellants, Bank Silver Company, are a 'factory' within the meaning of S. 2, Clause (12), of the Act. The appellants filed an application in the Employees' Insurance Court for a declaration that they were not covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act and that the partners of the appellant-firm were not 'employees' within the meaning of S. 2, Clause (9), of the Act. The application has been dismissed and this appeal is directed against that order. 2. The facts which are necessary for the decision of the question raised on this appeal are admitted. The appellants are a partnership firm owning an establishment in which articles of silver are manufactured. The firm employs eighteen workers in its establishment and, in addition, four of the six partners of the firm also work in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom111; (1964)66BOMLR780; ILR1965Bom8; 1965MhLJ157
(1) This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, (Act No. 34 of 1948), from an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay. The question which arises in the appeal is whether the appellants Messrs. Bank Silver Company, are a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2 clause (12) of the Act. The appellants filed an application in the Employees' Insurance Court for a declaration that they were not covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act and that the partners of the appellant firm were not 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2 clause (9) of the Act. The application has been dismissed and this appeal is directed against that order.(2) The facts which are necessary for the decision of the question raised on this appeal are admitted. The appellants are a partnership firm owing an establishment in which articles of silver are manufactured. The firm employs 18 workers in its establishment and, in addition, four of the six partners of the firm also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1964)66BOMLR584; 1964MhLJ691
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, by which the petitioners, who were originally returned as elected members in a Gram Panchayat election, have challenged the order of the Election Tribunal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act declaring their election to be invalid.2. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were candidates for election to two general seats in ward No. 1 in elections held for constitution of a Panchayat for village Shegaon Buzruk. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were also candidates for the same seats. In all three seats were to be filled, two general seats and one reserved. Respondents Nos. 1 and 7 contested the election to the reserved seat as also petitioner No. 3 Doma. All the three petitioners were declared elected to the respective seats for which they contested at a poll held on January 10, 1961. The results were declared on January 11, 1961. Thereafter respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed election petition No. 10 of 1961 and respondent No. 5 filed el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR618
Tambe, J.1. All the aforesaid appeals and revision applications could be disposed of together as they arise out of the same trial held by the Special Judicial Magistrate and Presidency Magistrate, II Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The first five appeals are by the accused-Laxmipat, accused. No. 1; Punamchand, accused No. 2; Balchand, accused No. 3; Kundanmal, accused No. 5; and Sanchitlal Daga, accused No. 6. The other appeal is by the State of Maharashtra against the order of the Special Magistrate acquitting the accused Hanmantlal Kothari, accused No. 8 at the trial. The revision application is by the State of Maharashtra, praying that the sentences passed against the aforesaid convicted accused be adequately enhanced.2. The aforesaid six accused were being prosecuted for an offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, for being parties to a criminal conspiracy along with one Yau Monkchi Ethyl Wong and others, between February 1, 1959 and February 31, 1959, to acquire possession of and...
Tag this Judgment!