Mumbai Court November 1966 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.
Manager, General Motor Owner's Association, Washim and Anr. Vs. Mahamo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom395; (1967)69BOMLR833; 1968MhLJ119
Kotval, C.J. (1) The judgment in this special civil application shall also govern the disposal of Special Civil Application No. 630 of 1965, for in both the special civil applications a common point arises for decision, although under different circumstances. (2) In Special Civil Application No. 511 of 1965 three questions as follows have been referred for our decision: (1) Whether a person, who is illegally dismissed, is entitled to make a claim for wages for a period after his dismissal under the Payment of Wages Act? (2) Whether a declaration that the change is illegal under Section 41 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, makes any difference? (3) Whether the Payment of Wages Authority will have the power to entertain such an application when the above Act, by Section 16, makes a special provision for the same? (3) From a perusal of the order of reference, it is clear that the main point which the Division Bench considered was whether the case of Namdeo...
The Lokamanya Mills Barsi Limited Vs. Barsi Municipal Council, Barsi a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom229; (1967)69BOMLR656
Tarkunde, J.(1) These two writ petitions and three first appeals were argued together as they involved a common question relating to the validity of Maharashtra Act No. III of 1966 entitled 'The Borough Municipalities (Validation of Certain Taxes on Buildings and Lands) Act 1965.'(2) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it would be useful to start with the facts leading to Special Civil Application No. 1476 of 1966. That petition has been filed by the Lokmanya Mills of Barsi against the Barsi Municipality and the State of Maharashtra for an appropriate writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the said Maharashtra Act No. III of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned Act') unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative and requiring the Barsi Municipality not to take any steps in pursuance of the impugned Act. The petitioner, the Lokmanya Mills, has its spinning Mill in Barsi and the premises of the mill consist of a factory building, offices, bu...
Jaiwanti Mafatlal Gagalbhai Vs. Arvind Navinchandra Mafatlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom314; (1968)70BOMLR67; 1968MhLJ290
(1) During the pendency of the investigation of pauperism of the petitioner herein the respondents have applied to this Court for rejection of the application of the petitioner to sue as a pauper under Order 33 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. For the purpose of this application it must be assumed and I am assuming that the allegations contained in the plaint are correct.(2) The Petitioner claims to be an illegitimate daughter of one Mafatlal Gagalbhai (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). The petitioner has alleged that her mother Sushilabai was concubine and Avaruddha Stree of the said deceased during his life time. The said deceased died intestate on the 19th day of July 1964, living behind him surviving his two sons, named Navinchandra and Bhagubhai, as his heirs and next-of-kin according to Hindu Law. The said Navinchandra and Bhagubhai have died, and Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of the sai...
V. Juia Vs. S. Dalmia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom347; (1968)70BOMLR20
ORDER(1) This is a Petition under the Arbitration Act for the determination as to the validity of an Arbitration Agreement.(2) The petitioner is a member of the Stock Exchange, Bombay, and was at all material times carrying on business as a certified Broker in shares and securities. In the years 1960 and 1961 the respondents employed the petitioners their brokers to effect transaction in shares and securities. The petitioner accordingly effected certain transactions. In the beginning there was no disputes between them, but later in May and June 1961 disputes arose between them. The petitioner made a claim against the respondents for payment of certain amounts but the respondents disputed their liability to pay the same on the ground that the petitioner had failed to carry out certain instructions of the respondents.(3) The petitioner wanted the said disputes to be decided by arbitration as provided by the Rules. Bye-laws and Regulations of the Stock Exchange, Bombay. Accordingly the pe...
Babgonda Ramgonda Patil Vs. Anna Nemgonda Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom8; (1967)69BOMLR523; ILR1967Bom781
V.S. Desai, J. (1) The short question which arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the alienation by the sole surviving coparcener can be challenged by a subsequently adopted son to a predeceased coparcener in the family by the widow of the said coparcener. (2) One Babangonda Patil had two sons Ramgonda and Nemgonda. Ramgonda dies in 1921 leaving behind his widow Satakka Nemgonda died in 1929 leaving behind a son Appa and his widow Sonubai. Appa died a couple of years later while he was unmarried and still a minor and his mother Sonubai succeeded to the joint family property which consisted of six lands and a house at the village Samboli in Tasgaon Taluka of the Sangli District. In 1941, Sonubai adopted Anna the Defendant No. 1 as a son to her deceased husband. On the 26th of July 1945, Anna, the Defendant No. 1, alienated six of the seven joint family properties by Exs. 81 and 82. Therefore, on the 19th of September 1945, Satakka, the widow of Ramgonda, adopted the ...
Sunmitra Auto Rickshaw Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and anr. Vs. Director of Tr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom402; (1967)69BOMLR247; 1967MhLJ589
Kotval, C.J.(1) In this petition a union of Auto-rickshaw owners and an auto-rickshaw driver challenge the orders dated 27th June 1965, 14th July 1965, and 5th November, 1965. passed by the Director of Transport, the respondent No. 1 compelling the petitioner No. 2 and other auto-rickshaw owners and drivers to affix taxi meters to their auto-rickshaws plying in Poona City. The original notification under which these subsequent orders were issued was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, Poone Division, Part I, dated 21st October, 1965, notification No. 4735/5-O/fare meter/POR at page 1392 of the Gazette. That was a general notification under rule 129 (1) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, notifying that no contract carriage permits to ply auto-rickshaws for hire or reward within the Cities of Poona, Kolhapur, Sholapur, Karad Miraj and Sangli and the environs thereof, shall be granted unless such auto-rickshaws are fitted with an approved type of fare meter. Curiously ...
Rangnath Lahanu Lambhale Vs. Gopal Kashinath Mulay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom411; (1967)69BOMLR184; 1967MhLJ470
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Ahemednagar, requiring an interpretation of Section 43 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, Regular Appeal No, 312 of 1960, which was against an order fixing the standard rent, was fixed for final hearing before the learned District Judge on the 4th of October 1961. When the matter was called out, the parties filed a compromise application and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise without any hearing or arguments. The appellant thereafter applied for a refund of the Court-fees under Section 43 of the Bombay Court-fees Act of 1959 and the question before the Court was whether he was entitled to the said refund. Now the material portion of section 43 is as follows:-'43 (1) When any suit in a court is settled by agreement of parties before any evidence is recorded, or any appeal or cross objection is settled by agreement of parties before it is called on for effective hearing by the Court, half the amo...
Rajgopal Raghunathdas Somani Vs. Ramchandra Hajarimal Jhavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR472; 1967MhLJ799
Kotval, C.J.1. The judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of letters patent appeals Nos. 54 and 89 of 1964, application No. 1379 of 1964, miscellaneous civil application No. 51 of 1964 and civil revision application No. 1902 of 1964. All these matters relate to a public temple known as Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir, which is a public trust. The origin and history of this trust and its properties is not very clear from the record of the proceedings before us and appears to have been lost in antiquity, but such facts as we have been able to ascertain and which are relevant for the purposes of the matters before us are briefly as follows:2. The site on which the temple stands in Sholapur town was purchased by one Ramnarain Kashinath Singh on August, 5, 1890, The temple was then built on it and the idol of God Laxminarayan installed. On January 29, 1912, an Utsava was arranged for worship of the idol and at that time the person who arranged it was the priest Rangachari R...
General Motor-Owners' Association (By Manager), Washim Vs. Mahamoodkha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1966
Reported in: [1968(16)FLR398]; (1968)ILLJ211Bom
Patel, J.1. This petition is by the General Motor-owners' Association through its manager against the order of the Payment of Wages Authority directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 300 to respondent 1 together with the costs of the application. The short facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent 1 was in the employment of the petitioner as a bus-driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 60. When he was on duty outside, he was to get a sum of Rs. 90 as allowance. Respondent 1 apparently appeared to be employed from time to time as and when necessary and his employment was a casual employment. He was dismissed from service on 26 December, 1955. He then made an application under S. 41 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, read with rule 36 of the rules framed by the State Government for a declaration that the change effected by the petitioner in respect of his employment was an illegal change. The district industrial court made a declarati...
Vishnu Dutt Vashisth and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Watch and Gramophone Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom434; (1967)69BOMLR229; 1967MhLJ547; MANU/MH/0152/1967
ORDER(1) This is a revision application under Section 115 opf the Code of Civil Procedure by defendants 1 and 5 from the judgment of the City Civil Court, Bombay, holding on preliminary issues that it has j jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that the subject matter of the suit is properly valued. I am concerned in his revision application with two questions only; one, whether by reason of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and two, whether the subject matter of the suit is properly valued. Questions arising out of the three other preliminary issues were not canvassed before me.(2) Suit No. 6171 of 1964 has been filed in the City Civil Court by three plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 3 to this revision application. The plaintiffs are in occupation of three shops which have a peculiar situation. A cinema t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›