Mumbai Court April 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.
Shaikh Omar Shaikhlal Vs. Mohammadji Madarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR815; 1966MhLJ55
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The lands in dispute were granted as Inam on the condition of service which was specified as Taziadari, that is, for taking out Tazias during the period of Mohurram. After the coming into force of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. as amended in 1959, the question arose whether this Inam was abolished by this Act. The Deputy Collector held that the Inam was not abolished. That order was confirmed in appeal by Government. It is being challenged before us in this application.2. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act states that it shall be applicable to all inams except (i) inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions and (ii) inams held for rendering village service useful to the Government or to the village community including sethsendhi, neeradi and balutha inams. Sub-section (2A) provides that on the coming into force of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1959 (July 1, 1960) the Act shall apply also...
Trimbak Narayan Bhagwat Vs. Kumudini Trimbak Bhagawat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom80; (1965)67BOMLR837; ILR1966Bom482
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings started by the wife against her husband for judicial separation. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly set out as follows:The appellant (who will hereinafter be referred to as the husband) was married to the respondent (who will hereinafter be referred to as the wife) on 17-5-1949. The wife as well as the husband came from respectable families. The wife was a graduate at the time of the marriage and the husband had passed the Diploma of Chartered Accountancy. At the time of the marriage, the husband was working in partnership with another person, which partnership had two offices, on at Hyderabad and the other at Bombay. The husband started working in the office at Hyderabad. In the month of August 1949 the wife went to stay with her husband at Hyderabad. Two issues were born to the wife from the husband, one on 19-4-1950 by name Ravindra and the other on 9-8-1951 by name Vikram. Both were sons. Disputes started between the partner...
Kashiram Pandurang Rajguru Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom147; (1965)67BOMLR940; ILR1966Bom228
ORDER(1) This is tenant's petition under article 227 of the constitution. One Narayan was the Landlord of two fields survey No. 16/2, area 14, acres 29 gun has at villages Akkalkot, and survey No. 105/1 - area 7 acres and 12 gunthas, of villages Akola. Both the field were being cultivated by the petitioner under a lease granted by Narayan.(2) On 4-5-1961 Narayan gave a notice to the petitioners that the failed to pay the lease money for the years 1960 - 61. The leases money was not paid for both the fields. By the notices the petitioners was called upon to pay to the amount of lessee money within a period of three months. In spite to notice the patina did not pay the amount of the rent of the arrears.(3) Narayan therefore filed an application of on 27-9-1961 for possession under S. 36 read with S. 19 of the new Tenancy Act. In those proceedings the petitioners admitted that Rs. 159 were due from him to the landlord by was of arrears of rent for the years 1960-61. Thus there was no disp...
Abdus Shukoor Shaikh Dawood Vs. A.M. Chatterjea and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom109; (1965)67BOMLR532; ILR1966Bom224
Chainani, C.J. (1) The petitioner was formerly employed in Arabian American Oil Company at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia. Some time about September 1959 his services came to an end . The petitioner was then given two cheques , one of which he encashed in Saudi Arabia . The second cheque which has given rise to this proceeding , was drawn by the American Oil Company in Indian Currency on 29th September 1959. It was drawn on the ' Nether lands Trading Society , Alkhobar through the Netherlands Trading Society , Bombay' . Alkhobar is in Saudi Arabia . The cheque the bore the endorsement ' Pay to the order of Abdus Shukoor ( the petitioner) Rs. 16504.31'. the petitioner brought this cheque to India and gave it to one Badshah & Co , Bombay who according to the petitioner, paid him the amount due on it . It appears that Badshah & Co then sent the cheque by post to Bhatkal Provision Stores Alkhobar . The cheque was intercepted in transmission and was sent to the Enforcement Directorate . an enquiry...
Rallis India Ltd., Bombay Vs. Its Workman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1965
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ712Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Payment of Bonus Act - Sections 3, 13, 23 and 34; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1) and 12(5)AWARD1. This is a reference by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of a dispute between Rallis India, Ltd., and the workmen employed under it in its head office and allied offices over the following demands : 'The company should pay all its workmen unconditional bonus equivalent to five-twelfths of their earnings including salary, wages, dearness allowance, during the year 1 September 1962 to 31 August 1963.' 2. In the statement of claim by the Rallis India, Ltd., Lower Grade Staff Union, it is stated, inter alia, as follows. The company was incorporated in 1948. It has an all-India distribution and service organization with its head office in Calcutta and branches at various cities and towns in India. For the year ending 31 August 1963, the company has made a profit of Rs. 86 lakhs as...
Joaquina Cardoze Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Bom265; (1966)IILLJ823Bom
1. This is an appeal by the applicant from the judgment of the Commissioner for workman's Compensation, Bombay, dismissing her application for compensation owing to the death of her husband arising out and in the course of his employment. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 2. Joao Fernandes, the husband of the applicant, was serving on the ship known as 'Desh Sevak' belonging to the Shipping Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) on 30 December, 1959. While the said Joao Fernandes was on board the ship he died in harness in an accident near what is known as 'harbour.' The applicant is a resident of Goa. She received a letter on 4 January, 1960 from the Shipping Master of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., informing her that her husband had died by drowning. A copy of this letter was sent to Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 13 January, 1960 : the Commissioner wrote a letter to the opposite party under S. 10A of the Workmen's Compensation Act asking them wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›