Mumbai Court November 1965 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Savari Nathu (G.) and ors. Vs. Subhash Silk Mills, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ910Bom
ORDER1. The facts which have led to this appeal are briefly as follows : The second labour court at Bombay by its order under appeal dated 12 August, 1965 dismissed twenty application for reinstatement filed on behalf of the appellants who were retrenched. The full bench of this court in Soma Ramjee Varghade v. Sri Madhu Sudden Mills, Ltd., Bombay 1965 I.C.R. 261 has held that a retrenched person is not an employee according to the definition given in the Bombay Industrial Relation Act, and therefore cannot make an application before the labour court. I am bound by this decision but the law has been amended thereafter, so that the present definition in S. 2(13) stands as follows : 'employee' means any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry, and includes - (a) * * * (b) a person who had been dismissed, discharged or retrenched or whose service have been terminated from employment on account of any dispute relating to change in respect of w...
Dajiba Gurunath Gavane and ors. Vs. Sangappa Sharanappa Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom264; (1966)68BOMLR470; ILR1966Bom1007
Tambe, Ag. C.J.(1) By this petition under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the three petitioners pray that an appropriate writ or direction be issued declaring applicant No. 2 as validity elected to one of the two general seats and the order of the Opponent No. 6 declaring Opponent No, 1 as elected be quashed.(2) The facts in brief are:An election was held for electing three representatives from Ward No, II of village Karjal in Taluka Akkalkot to a village panchayat by name Karjal-Halhauli Group Grampanchayat. Two out of the three representatives that were to be elected were for the general seats and one for the seat reserved for scheduled caste. For the two general seats four candidates contested, viz., Dajiba Gurunath Gavane, Somshankar Shivlingappa Swami, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 before us, and Sangappa Sharanappa Patil and Shivbasappa Shiddappa Tambrke, opponents Nos. 1 and 2 before us. Petitioner No. 3 Vithal Babu Hotkar and opponent No. 3 Irappa Sharanappa Ingale, w...
Miss Kamalini Manmade Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR512
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India and five others to recover Rs. 1 lac as and by way of damages for defamation. The plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, may briefly be stated; On or about October 20, 1956, a telephone directory was published at the instance of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in which against the telephone number and name of the plaintiff the following entry appeared in bold letters 'Miss Prostitution Solicitor' on page 138 thereof. In respect of this entry, which was prima facie defamatory of the plaintiff, a suit, being Suit No. 30 of 1958 was instituted by the plaintiff against the Union of India (present defendant No. 1) and Shri P.M. Agarwala (present defendant No. 2). In that suit the plaintiff: claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 as and by way of damages for defamation for the said entry in the public telephone directory. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (who were also defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in that suit) filed their written state...
Bhiku Keru Gade Vs. Dashrath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom267; (1966)68BOMLR464; ILR1966Bom997
(1) The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The material facts stand briefly as follows; Survey No. 42 A measuring for acres and forty-seven gunthas and assessed at Rs. 14 (plus water cess Rs. 5 ) situate in Moravale village originally belonged to the plaintiff. He had leased the said land to Keru Mahadu Gade, the father of defendants Nos. 3 to 5, and the name of Keru had been entered in the record of rights as a protected tenant. On 2-2-1955 the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Keru Mahadu. the father of defendants Nos. 3 to 5, for a sum of Rs. 2000 (Ext. 44). The same day, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 3, who is the son of Keru Mahadu, executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff (Ext. 56). The agreement stipulated that the property would be reconveyed to the plaintiff on his payment of the sum of Rs. 2000, for which it was sold to the defendants No...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›