Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom191; (1965)67BOMLR197; ILR1965Bom379; 1965MhLJ343
Tambe, J. (1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order made by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, 6th respondent hereto, on 22-4-1964, setting aside the election of the petitioner to the Board of Director of Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. the second respondent hereto.(2) Facts in brief are : The second respondent is a Federal Co-operative Society. Sub-section (13) of S. 2 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines a 'federal society' thus :'federal society' means a society (a) not less than five members of which are themselves societies, and (b) in which the voting rights are so regulated that the members which are societies have not less than four-fifths of the total number of votes in the general meeting of such society,'It would thus be seen that the membership of the federal society consists of shareholders falling under two categori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR812
Mudholkar, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court is whether respondent No. 1 Dr. D.P. Meshram was entitled to be a candidate for election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from constituency No. 190 of Nagpur III, a constituency reserved for candidates from scheduled castes.2. The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were candidates duly nominated for election to the Assembly from the aforesaid constituency. The poll was taken on February 27, 1962, and respondent No. 1 who had polled the highest number of votes was declared elected. The appellant thereupon preferred an election petition before the Election Commission, the main allegations in which were (a) that respondent No. 1 having embraced Buddhism on March 17, 1957, had ceased to be a member of a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and was thus disentitled from being a candidate for the par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)ILLJ145Bom
Chainani, C.J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly these. On 28 December 1956 the respondent made an application to the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act for recovering wages for the period August 1953 to December 1955, which according to him had not been paid to him by the petitioner. Under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of S. 15 of the Act the application has to be made to the authority within one year from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made. The second proviso permits an application to be made after the period of one year when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The authority refused to condone the delay in making the application for the period prior to December 1955. The authority directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent his wages for the month of December 1955, leave-wages and notice-pay. The respondent did not appeal against this order. On 2 J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom185; (1965)67BOMLR45; [1965(10)FLR114]; ILR1965Bom372; 1965MhLJ220
Chianani, C.J.(1) The facts in this case are briefly these. On 28th December 1956 the respondent made an application to the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act for recovering wages for the period August 1953 to December 1955, which according to him had not been paid to him by the petitioner. Under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act the application has to be made to the authority within one year from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made. The second proviso permits an application to be made after the period of one year when the applicant satisfied the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The authority refused to condone the delay in making the application for the period prior to December 1955. The authority directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent his wages for the month of December 1955, leave wages and notice pay. The respondent did not appeal against this order....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom266; ILR1965Bom363
[1] The Short question involved in this appeal is regarding the mode of computing mesne of profits and the amount of mesne profits which would eventually follows:[2] The house in dispute of was contracted more than 40 years before 1957. A block of four rooms from that house was taken on a rent of Rs. 21-10-6 per month by the defendants on from the former owners in the years 1939. The plaintiff respondents purchased this entire building inclusive of the block in possession of the defendant on the 2nd of February 1954. After obtaining permission from the Rent control Officer, the plaintiff respondents served that defendants with a notice terminating his tenancy and filed hi suit for ejectment arrears of rent and mesne profits in the years 1955. This suit was eventually decreed on the 12th of December 1957 and it was ordered under order 20 Rule 12, Code of civil procedure that mesne profits from 1-8-1955 on wards be determined. The defendants appellant actually vacated possession of the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom29; (1965)67BOMLR190; ILR1965Bom566
Tambe, J.(1) The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner who had been elected first as a member of the panchayat Samiti of Shahada under section 571F. of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and panchayat Samiti act 1961 [here in after referred to has the act of 1961] and later on elected as the chairman of the said Samiti on 7-8-62, continues still to be a member of the said Samiti after 1-12-63and in the alternative, in spite of the fact that he has ceased to be a member of the said Samiti as and from that date, he is entitled to carry on as a chairman the current admissible duties as are prescribed by the rules. To appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to state certain facts. In her year 1959 a petitioner was initially elected to be a member of the group gram panchayat of the village Kalsadi in Shahada block. Later in the same year, he also became the Sarpanch of the said group gram panchayat. Under the act of 1961, the bodies constituted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR352; 1965MhLJ537
Patel, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] Mr. Chitale contends that (1) the Court below had no jurisdiction to fix the standard rent in the manner in which it has done having regard to the provisions of the Rent Act. (2) He contents that even if it had jurisdiction it has erred in exercising it in determining the case. (3) That it made out a new case for the defendant when it held that there was no appropriation of rent and allowed accounts, (4) that it wrongly disallowed insurance premia and restoration charges, and (5) that it was not entitled to determine the question of statutory-tenancy.2. The first contention is that the Court had no jurisdiction to fix the standard rent as in this case the premises leased to the defendant were not leased prior to that date. It may be mentioned that the whole compound with all the structures was leased from January, 1940, to the National Studio at a rental of Rs. 1,700 per month.3. Section 5, Sub-section (8) defines 'premises...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234
Tambe, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, wherein the vires of the Gold Control Rules, contained in part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, have been challenged. In the prayer clauses of the petition no doubt, validity of the entire rule were not challenged but only some of the rule were not mentioned. But the arguments advanced before us the were in respect of rules in general. If would not therefore be necessary to consider each rule separately.(2) The two petitioners before us are dealers in gold. They profess and parties Jain religion. The two petitioners carry onto business in the name and style of 'Messrs. Chandkumar Amichand & Co'. The principal business of the petitioner is in bullion. They buy and sell gold in course of their business. In their petition they say that the business carried on by the them is on a vast scale. Eleven persons are employed by them in the firm and the annual salary to the Rs. 20,000. The firm is also a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR782
Mudholkar, J.1. The question which falls for decision in this, appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, was maintainable. The plaintiffs are some of the tenants occupying different rooms in a group of buildings known as Dhobi Chawls (and also known as the Colaba Land Mill Chawls) situate on Lala Nigam Road, Colaba, Bombay. There are a large number of other tenants also who reside or carry on business in, these Chawls and the plaintiffs instituted a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all the tenants. Defendant No. 1 to the suit is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the remaining defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are landlords of the plaintiffs.2. The buildings and the land on which they stand belong to the Colaba Land Mill Co., Ltd., Bombay. Under an agreement dated May 16, 1956, called the Demolition Agreement defendants Nos. 2 to 4 undertook for a certain consideration to demoli...
Tag this Judgment!