Mumbai Court August 1964 Judgments
The State of Bombay Vs. Shivabalak Gaurishankar Dube
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1964
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR438
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. What is the scope and effect of the provisions contained in Section 65 read with Section 83 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (No. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), that is the short question which arises for our decision in this appeal. The four respondents are the owners of certain agricultural lands in Deokhope in Taluka Palghar in Maharashtra, On June 23, 1951, a notice was served by the appellant, State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), inviting the attention of the respondents to the fact that the agricultural lands of which they were the owners had remained fallow since 1948-49, and intimating to them that the appellant State would resume management of the said lands under Section 65 of the Act unless the respondents took steps to bring them under cultivation in the following agricultural-season. The respondents were told that in case they wanted to bring the said lands into cultivation, they should send intimation of their ...
Tag this Judgment!Jobanputra (B.K.) Vs. Kalelkar (B.S.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: (1965)ILLJ543Bom; 1965MhLJ190
Tambe, J. 1. This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, by 29 workmen who were in the employment of respondent 3, the New Asiatic Company, Ltd. They seek to get quashed the order of the Second Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Bombay, of 27 April, 1962. 2. The question that arises is whether the gratuity payable under the settlement arrived at during the course of the conciliation proceedings is 'wages' within the meaning of that word in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. These 29 workmen have been retrenched from service by respondent 3, the first 27 on 1 July, 1960 and 28 and 29 on 1 November, 1960. These 29 workmen, after they had been retrenched, filed applications under the Payment of Wages Act, for recovery of certain sums falling under three categories - wages for overtime work and for leave period, bonus and the amounts of gratuity claimed by them under the settlement reached during the course of conciliation proceedings. Now, the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Jobanputra and ors. Vs. B.S. Kalekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom146; (1965)67BOMLR1; [1965(10)FLR104]; ILR1965Bom239
Tambe, J.(1) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by 29 workmen who were in the employment of the third respondent the News Asiatic Company Limited. They seek to get quashed the order of the Second Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Bombay, of date 27th April 1962.(2) The question that arises is whether the gratuity payable under the settlement arrived at during the course of the conciliation proceedings is 'wages' within the meaning of that word in the payment of wages Act, 1936. These 29 workmen have been retrenched from service by the third respondent, the first 27 on 1st July 1960, and 28 and 29 on 1st November 1960. These 29 workmen, after they had been retrenched filed applications under the Payment of Wages Act, for recovery of certain sums falling under three categories wages for overtime work and for leave period, bonus and the amounts of gratuity claimed by them under the settlement reached during the course of concili...
Tag this Judgment!The Commercial Credit Corporation (1943) Private Limited Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR138
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging' the notices issued by the Sales Tax Officers of Nagpur and Wardha to the petitioner and praying that a writ may be issued against the said Sales Tax Officers requiring them to withdraw the said notices and prohibiting them from assessing the petitioner to sales tax for the periods covered by the said notices.2. The petitioner is a financing corporation, and according to it, it carries on the business of financing the purchase of motor vehicles. The petitioner has been carrying on its business at Bombay and it has a representative in Nagpur. On November 12, 1962, the Sales Tax Officer III, Circle II, Nagpur, served a notice on the petitioner directing1 the petitioner to show cause why it should not be assessee/reassessed and why a penalty should not be imposed on it on the ground that being a dealer liable to pay tax under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947), in resp...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Tendulkar Vs. C.F. Mathias and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom187; (1965)67BOMLR11; ILR1965Bom280; 1965MhLJ477
Tambe, J.(1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who was the President of the Bhor Municipality, seeks to get quashed the order dated 10th July 1964 made by the State Government, in exercise of its powers under section 28(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) removing the petitioner from the office of President.(2) The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are : As already stated, the petitioner was an elected president of the Bhor Municipality. In his capacity as the President, he presided over the meetings of the Municipality on 30th January 1963. In that meeting, the Municipality passed a resolution to the effect that Sarvashri B. S. Bapat and R.D. Patil of the Bhor Municipality should not be allowed to sit in the house till they apologised for having published mischievous new in the two newspapers i.e. 'Tarun Bharat' and 'Sakal' against the President. The effect of passing that resoluti...
Tag this Judgment!Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahanand Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1964
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ455Bom
1. This is an appeal by the employers against an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, awarding a sum of Rs. 245 as compensation to the respondent for the injury suffered by him. The learned Commissioner has also directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 50 to the respondent by way of penalty and a sum of Rs. 10 by way of costs. 2. The respondent is in the employment of the appellants in a factory situated at Chandiwali. On May 12, 1962 a finger of the right hand of the respondent was caught between the drum and the frame of a coiling machine. The respondent was taken to the Bhabha Memorial Hospital where he was treated until May 17, 1962. On May 21, 1962 the respondent resumed his work and produced a certificate stating that he was fit to resume his duties. The respondent thereafter called upon the appellants to pay compensation for the injury suffered by him during the course of the employment and on the appellants declining to comply with the demand,...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hiraman Punja Vidhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom154; (1965)67BOMLR16; 1965CriLJ349; ILR1965Bom237
Patel, J.(1) The accused in this case is a young man. He was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Nasik for an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for rape on a young girl of four years of age but was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Nasik in Appeal.(2) The facts as they emerge from the evidence of Indubai (P.K. No.1), the mother of the girl, are few and we as follows: Her husband, Sukhdeo (P.W. No.7) is a motor driver in the State Transport Corporation and at the relevant time in January 1963, he was posted at Nasik. While she and her child lived at Pimpalgaon. Her husband used to come to the village every week. The accused lived with his brothers Vithoba and Balkrishna one house away from her house. Vithoba had two your daughters and therefore whenever Indubai had to go for any work, she used to leave her daughter Suman at the house of Vithoba.(3) The incident occurred next day after the Sankrant, Her husband left on that day for Na...
Tag this Judgment!Tribuwandas Gulabchand and Brothers, Nagpur Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC452(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee made by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 23(1) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act. 2. The question that is referred is as follows :- 'Whether the view of the Tribunal that glass sheets fall under entry No. 15 of Schedule I, Part I, to the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, is justified in law.'3. The assessee does the business of dealing in glass sheets, photo-frames and pictures. The Sales Tax Officer assessee his turnover for glass sheets at the rate of 7 per cent. holding that this item was covered under 'glass-wares' falling under item No. 15 in the First Schedule of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The chargeable accounting period for which the turnover was determined is from 3rd November, 1956, to 23rd October, 1957. The assessment order was passed on 28th October, 1959. Against this order the assessee preferred a first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Eastern Division...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Tatyasaheb Ghatge Vs. Collector, District Kolhapur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom217; (1964)66BOMLR784; ILR1965Bom184; 1965MhLJ146
Gokhale, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Challenges the order made by the Assistant Judge, Kolhapur, by which he dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to have the election of respondent No. 5 set aside on various grounds.(2) The election in question was of the Panchayats Samiti of the sidhanerli Electorate Group from Sangav Gat. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were the contesting candidates at the said election. The election was held on 31st July 1962. The date of the election was fixed by a notification issued by the Collector of Kolhapur as required by S. 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The time for the election as notified in the notification issued by the Collector was from 11 a.m to 5 p.m. The votes were counted on 3rd of August 1962 and it was found that the petitioner and respondent No.5 had polled an equal number of votes, viz . 17 votes each...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Narayan and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpurand o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom92; (1964)66BOMLR807; ILR1965Bom200; 1965MhLJ577
Tambe, J.(1) All these applications can be disposed of together as one of the questions released in these applications is common and that question relates to the legality and validity of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, (Bombay Act No. VIII of 1958). It is the contention of the petitioners in all the three cases that Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power or authority. The facts in all legislative power or authority. The facts in all these three cases are similar. It would be sufficient if facts in one case are fully stated, and we proceed to state facts in special Civil Application No. 62 of 1963 inasmuch as that was the case is which arguments were advanced by Mr. D.T. Managalmurti and which had been adopted by Mr.Kukday and Mr. Mandiekar, Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other two cases. Mr. Kukday also had supplemented the argument of Mr. Mangalm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »