Mumbai Court October 1965 Judgments
Maria Antonica Rodrigues Vs. D.R. Baliga and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom465; (1967)69BOMLR41
(1) The appellant, Maira Antonica Rodrigues, is the daughter of respondent No. 3, Baltazar M. Rodrigues, who effected a policy of insurance with the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company'). The policy was a marriage endowment policy, issued on the 25th of September 1933, for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The premium on the policy was payable 'during the joint lifetime of the proposer and the said Maria Antonica Rodrigues for a period of 19 years'. The sum assured was payable to 'the proposer whom failing to the said Maria Antonica Rodrigues provided she shall have attained majority, failing which to the legally appointed guardian of the said Maria Antonica Rodrigues.' It is also mentions the following special provisions:- 'if the said Maria Antonica Rodrigues, hereinafter called the said chile, shall die before the twenty-fifth day of September Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-two while the policy is in force, the total amount of p...
Tag this Judgment!Village Panchayat of Kanhan-pipri, District Nagpur Vs. Standing Commit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom283; (1966)68BOMLR828; 1967MhLJ70
Abhyankar, J.(1) The petitioner is a Village Panchayat of Kanhan Pipri. It has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the resolution passed by respondent no. 1 on 6-4-1964, by which it allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2, Respondent no.1 has held that the resolution passed by he petitioner Panchayat levying octroi tax was not validly made, and it has further held that the activities of respondent no. 2. Factory did not attract the liability for payment of octroi tax in respect of tea leaves imported by them for the purpose of lending in that factory.(2) The petitioner has been constituted as a Village Panchayat under section 5 read with section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958. It comprises of an area of more than one Village, which is permissible under that Act. The Panchayat is a body corporate having perpetuity in succession and is a local authority over the area for which it is constituted. Under section 124 of the Bombay Village ...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Khodabhai Patel Vs. Chiba Bava Bhandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom310; (1966)68BOMLR461
ORDER(1) This application arises out of ejectment suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner, who was his tenant. The suit was decreed ex parte. Against this judgment the petitioner filed an appeal to the District Court on December 16, 1961 and also made aside the ex parte decree two days later on the 18th. The appeal in the District Court was summarily rejected under O. 41, R. 11 on July 6, 1962. Thereafter the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was heard by the trial Court who allowed it on July 16, 1962, without the knowledge that the petitioner's appeal was summarily dismissed. The plaintiff came to know about the dismissal of the appeal and he then made an application under S. 151 of the C. P. Code for setting aside the order on the ground that the petitioner had concealed material facts from the trial Court when he obtained the order setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court set aside its order on the ground that fraud was played on the Court in o...
Tag this Judgment!Vithoba Balaji Ghodke and ors. Vs. Balakrishna Ganesh Bhalerao and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Bom14; (1967)69BOMLR31; ILR1966Bom948; 1967MhLJ224
(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, dismissing an application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Made by the appellants. The application under section 72 was filed against the decision of the Charity Commissioner dated the 5th of February 1960. The circumstances in which these decisions came to be made are these: One Trimbak Bhalerao made an application on the 10th of May 1952 purporting to be an application under section 19 of the Act. This application was in respect of S. No 790 in village Belhe and was field by Joshi Bhalerao under protest. It appears that there are deities of Shriram, Sitamai, Laxman and Hanuman in this Village. Trimbak Joshi Bhalerao's case before the Assistant Charity Commissioner was that the property S. No. 7909 was his private property and was not the property of a temple or a house in which these deities wee installed in that village. On the 7th of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Rallis (India) Ltd. Vs. Kulkarni (R.N.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ685Bom
Chainani, C.J.1. The opponent 2, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, was in the employ of the petitioners. On September 2, 1963, the opponent was dismissed from service. At that time a dispute between the petitioners and their workmen was pending before the labour court for adjudication. On the same day, September 2, 1963, the petitioners made an application to the labour court for approval of the action taken by them against the opponent under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The body of the application refers to the action which had been taken against the opponent and in the prayer clause it was prayed that approval should be granted to the dismissal of the opponent. There is a union of workers employed by the petitioners, which is known as Teddington Chemical Kamgar Sangh. At the top of the application, the reference number of the dispute pending before the labour court was mentioned. The parties to the application were, however, shown as the union and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Vasnatal Ranchhoddas Patel and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom138; (1966)68BOMLR223; 1967CriLJ715
Chainani, C.J.(1) These three appeals have been heard together as they raise common questions of law and fact. On 23rd July, 1964 the Assistant Enforcement Officer, enforcement Directorate, obtained a search warrant from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act authorising him to search shop No. 157 situated at Mumbadevi Road, Bombay and seize incriminating documents, foreign exchange, instruments, account books, correspondence and passport, if any for the purpose of the enquiry into offences under Sections 4,5 and 9 of the said Act. In pursuance of this warrant, the Assistant Enforcement Officer, respondent No. 3,. accompanied by some other officers of the Enforcement Branch, searched the said premises on the same day. No incriminating documents or other materials were found. One V. R. Patel, who is the appellant in appeal No. 2 of 1965, was then present in the shop. He was searched in the presence of panchas and four packets cont...
Tag this Judgment!M.H. Tejani Vs. Kulsumbai M. Jetha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom300; (1966)68BOMLR809
(1) The appellant-original respondent and the respondent-original petitioner agreed by an indenture of the 15th of July 1954 to carry on in partnership the business of commission agents in machinery, plants and other articles. That partnership was for a period of five years. The partnership was dissolved by the respondent by a notice of the 7th of June 1959 with effect from the 14th of July 1959. clause 13 of the partnership agreement provided for arbitration of the disputes between the parties. By a letter dated the 22nd of january 1960 the respondent appointed Mr, B. J. Kapadia as her arbitrator. On the 16th of February 1960 the appellant wrote to the respondent saying that Mr. M. J. Gordhandas was appointed as his arbitrator. After these arbitrators were appointed, nothing seems to have happened with reference to the arbitration proceedings till the 25th of July 1963, on which date the respondent filed the petition in the Bombay City Civil Court praying, inter alia (a) that the arbi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Nagoji Kandam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom41; (1966)68BOMLR233; 1967CriLJ163; ILR1966Bom756
ORDER(1) This revision application arises out of proceedings started under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chiplun, found that Party No. 1 was in possession at the material time and passed the consequential order. Against this order, Party No. 2 preferred a revision application to the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the decision of this Court viz. Dr. Lallubhai Bhatt v. State of Bombay, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the above-mentioned revision application.(2) In this revision application, Mr. Kode for the petitioner, i.e. party No. 2 contends that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct, inasmuch as the judgment of the Division Bench in the abovementioned case clearly leaves the material question open. According to Mr. Kode, the material question in this case is whether a Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under S. 145 Cr. P. C. can be said to be an inferior Criminal Court mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Model Mills Ltd., Nagpur Vs. State Industrial Court, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1965
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ375Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition at the instance of the factory manager of the Model Mills, Nagpur, challenges the order of the Assistant Commissioner of labour, Nagpur, setting aside the termination of the services of respondent 3, Wasudeo, under standing order 23 after holding a departmental enquiry. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was challenged in revision before respondent 1, the State industrial court, at the instance of the petitioner but that authority has refused to interfere with the order of the Labour Commissioner. 2. Respondent 3, Wasudeo, was employed as a folder in the folding department of the mills at Nagpur. On December 22, 1962, the respondent was absent from work after recess. There is no dispute about this fact. When the time-clerk came to check the presence of respondent 3 after recess, he found him absent and, therefore, Marked that fact on the attendance-card maintained for respondent 3 by marking him absent for half a day. If a worker is present ...
Tag this Judgment!Factory Manager, Model Mills, Nagpur Ltd. Vs. State Industrial Court, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom147; (1966)68BOMLR749; ILR1966Bom1067
Abhyankar, J.(1) This petition at the instance of the Factory Manager of the Model Mills, Nagpur, challenges the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur setting aside the termination of the services of respondent No.3 Wasudeo under Standing Order 23 after holding a departmental enquiry. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was challenged in revision before respondent No. 1, the State Industrial Court, at the instance of the petitioner but that authority has refused to interfere with the order of the Labour Commissioner.(2) Respondent No. 3 Wasudeo was employed as a Folder in the Folding Department of the Mills at Nagpur. On 22-12-1962 the respondent was absent from work after recess. There is no dispute about this fact . when the time clerk came to check the presence of respondent No. 3 after recess he found him absent and therefore marked that fact on the attendance card maintained for respondent No. 3 by marking him absent for half day. If a worker is prese...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »