Mumbai Court September 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.
Paints Employees' Union (by general secretary) and Anr. Vs. Nail (M.D. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ579Bom
Chainani, C.J.1. Petitioner 1 is a union of the workers employed by respondent 2. Petitioner 2 is one of the employees. There was a dispute between the petitioners and respondent 2 in regard to the policy pursued by respondent 2 in making promotions to higher posts. As no agreement could be reached between the parties, the petitioners approached the Commissioner of Labour, who has been appointed as conciliation officer under the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing the parties he informed the petitioners that he did not propose to intervene in the matter. Against that order this application has been filed.2. It is now well-settled that an order refusing to take a dispute in conciliation is an administrative order. Unless therefore the petitioners can show that the conciliator, respondent 1, had committed some error of law, we cannot interfere. Sri Kamerkar has argued that even though promotions are a matter of internal administration for the management to decide, in this case respond...
Omparkash Gowardhandas Singhania and anr. Vs. G.V. Koimatlur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom7; (1966)68BOMLR176; ILR1966Bom491
Chainani, C.J. (1) The petitioners, are members of a Co-operative Housing society Opponent No. 2. Their mother was allotted a plot by the Society. This was subsequentl;y transferred to the petitioners. The by-laws of the Society were amended and a new by-law No. 11A was added. This by-law employers the Society to forfeit a plot if the member, to whom it is allotted, does not start construction of a house on the plot and does not complete the work of construction within the period mentioned in this by-law of such further period as may be approved by the managing committee on valid grounds. Under this by-law the petitioners' plot was forfeited by the Society, The petitioners then raised a dispute before the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In their application they prayed that by-law 11A should be declared to be ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, otherwise bad in law and not binding on the petitioners and also that the forfeiture of their p...
Re: Khushalchand B. Daga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR896
Patel, J.1. The matter has been referred to a Division Bench as it involves an important question of the practice and procedure followed in the Insolvency Court.2. The facts are few and may shortly be stated. On the petition by B.R. Herman and Mohatta (India) Private Ltd., the applicant before us, Khushalchand B. Daga, was adjudicated insolvent on July 6, 1960. On September 2, 1960, the insolvent took out a notice of motion for annulment of the adjudication. Apparently, the notice of motion is yet not disposed of but, the insolvency proceedings were stayed by the Court. The Punjab National Bank Ltd., who is the opponent before us, made a claim against the insolvent in the sum of Rs. 58,56,000 on the basis of guarantee furnished by Mm against a loan to Model Mills. The bank also accepted that it held security of debentures of the Model Mills of the face value of Its. 22,25,000. Before the applicant was adjudicated insolvent, on October 4, 1958, a petition for winding up of the Model Mil...
Kishan Valiya Patil Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom89; (1966)68BOMLR182; ILR1966Bom483
Tarkunde, J.(1) The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution and section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (respondent No. 3) and confirmed by the State of maharastra (respondent No. 1). The impunged order was passed on 15th June 1965, and it stated that the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the same day on which the order of detention was communicated to the petitioner, the Grounds on which that order was made were also communicated to him as required by section 7 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act. Those grounds were as follows:'I That since December 1964, in the localities known as Mahadeobhai Desai Road and Akurli Road and the areas adjoining there...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay Vs. Talegaon Dabhade Munic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom75; (1966)68BOMLR169; ILR1966Bom471
ORDER1. These two matters have been heard together as they raise a common question of law in regard to the meaning to be given to the words 'other person' in sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts of Civil Revision Application No. 295 briefly are that on 16th October 1957 the then Bombay Electricity Board entered into an agreement with the Respondent Municipality for providing, erecting and maintaining street lighting installation and supplying electrical energy on the roads within the Municipal limits. The petitioners, the Maharashtra Electricity Board, are the successors in title of the former, Bombay State Electricity Board. The Municipality subsequently raised a dispute in regard to the above agreement. On 29th/30th December 1958 the Municipality wrote to the Electricity Board that it wanted to refer the questions in dispute under Section 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act to two arbitrators. The letter st...
Gangavishindas Rijharam Bajaj Vs. Advent Corporation (Private) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom54; (1966)68BOMLR161; ILR1966Bom910
(1) This is a plaintiff's appeal.(2) The defendant, a private limited company, proposed to construct ownership flats on a piece of land at Foreshore Road in this city and invited purchasers for the same. It had prepared tentative plans which have yet to be sanctioned by the corporation. I am told that twenty-two flats were proposed to be contructed. The plaintiff was one of the eighteen who agreed to purchase the flat. He agreed to purchase one flat and paid Rs. 2,500 as earnest for the same on February 22, 1962, for which the Company executed a receipt. The price to be paid was Rs. 50,000. A formal agreement was later executed on March 11, 1963. The plaintiff agreed to accept the title of the company to the land without further investigation. It seems, as the Municipal Corporation proposed to widen the road, it did not sanction the plans as prepared by the defendant Company, it therefore, wrote letters to the purchasers of the flats showing its willingness to return the money taken by...
Bhagwandas Ramcharandas Vs. President, Municipal Committee, Achalpur C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom143; (1966)68BOMLR721; ILR1966Bom902
Abhyankar, J.(1) The petitioner Bhagwandas has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 18th August 1964 rejecting the application of the petitioner against a notice issued by the respondent No. 1.(2) The facts are somewhat unusual and require to be stated in detail. The petitioner is a resident within the municipal limits of the City of Achalpur and was elected as a member of the Achalpur City Municipal Committee in 1962 from Ward No. 19, Jiwanpura ward of the City of Achalpur. The respondent No. 1 is the President of that Municipal Committee. The petitioner alleged that there were 35 members comprising the Municipal Committee of Achalpur and were divided into two groups, 17 belonging to the party of the President and 18 members in opposition to him. The petitioner has further alleged that he left the party of the President along with some other members and joined the opposition group because of the mal-admini...
Special Land Acquisition Officer (1) Bombay and Bombay Suburban Distri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Bom31; (1967)69BOMLR168; ILR1967Bom588
(1) This is a Reference under the Land Acquisition Act under Sections 18 and 31(2). It concerns an immoveable property situated at Khetwadi, 12th Lane, Bombay. One Jamnadas Vanmalidas Muni was the owner of that property during his life time. The Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 20th April 1957 and 23rd June 1958 respectively. On the 29th of September 1958 Notices under Sections 9 and 10th of the Act were served on Jamnadas. On the 21st of October 1959 Jamnadas died. On the evidence before me I am satisfied, firstly, that he left no will and, secondly, that he died a widower, leaving only one child, being a son, Natverlal, who has given evidence before me. About a month and a half later, on the 10th of December 1959, the S. L. A. O. made his award. Under the award, he has declared that the amount of compensation awarded by him should be paid to Jamnadas. It is an obvious conclusion that when the S. L. A. O. made that award Jamnadas' death had not been broug...
Niranjanshing Vs. Bhagatrai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom136; (1966)68BOMLR167; ILR1966Bom992
ORDER(1) Opponent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the opponent) was the inamdar of the lands in dispute survey Nos. 65 and 66. This inam was abolished by the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with effect from 20-7-1955. The lands were then in possession of the Court Receiver who had been appointed in a suit between the opponent and some other persons. The possession of the lands was restored to the opponent some time in 1956. At that time there was no tenant on the lands. On 5-4-1957 the opponent leased the lands to the petitioner. On 6-9-1961 the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar that he should be recognised as having become the occupant of the lands under Section 6 of the Act. The Tehsildar held an enquiry. He was of the opinion that as the opponent was in possession of the lands in 1955, he was entitled to occupancy rights. He therefore, rejected the application made by the petitioner. Against this order the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›