Mumbai Court March 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.
Hegde M.G. Vs. Wireless Manufacturers, Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ460Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Payment of Wages Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 9, 9(2), 23, 26 and 26(3); Railways Act - Section 47(2); Bombay Payment of Wages Rules, 1937 - Rule 16 and 16(2)AWARD1. In this application the applicant has claimed an amount of Rs. 275 with compensation. 2. It is the case of the applicant that he was working with the opposite parties on a salary of Rs. 200 per month from October 11, 1965. The applicant resigned from the post on and from November 16, 1965. He has, therefore, claimed earned wages for fifteen days for which he worked. It is also stated that an amount of Rs. 175 has been deposited by him by way of security. He has thus claimed an amount of Rs. 275 with compensation. 3. Opposite party 1 in a separate written statement has denied the responsibility for the payment of his wages as there was no relationship of employer and employee existing between them. It is denied that the applicant was ever employed by them. 4. Opposite party 2 has filed separate written stateme...
Khurshid Banu Mahibubasaheb Haddiwale Vs. Mahibubsabeh Rahiman Haddiwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom228; (1966)68BOMLR719
(1) This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act. The appellant filed an application before the District Court claiming return of the custody of her minor children from the respondent, her husband. The parties were married in 1956. Out of this marriage, three sons and two daughters were born to the parties. She alleged that because of the quarrels and illtreatment, she had to leave the husband. She went to her father along with the children in about March, 1964. She further alleged that on September 2, 1964, the opponent forcibly removed the minor children from her custody. She made the application on November 13, 1964 for the return of the custody of the minors.(2) The case came up for hearing on June 26, 1965. On this date, the appellant was present in Court, but her advocate was engaged in another Court, and, therefore, she could not be present when the case was called up. She refused to enter the Court in the absence of her advocate. The learned Judge started dictating the o...
Siddi Yakub Siddi Mahamud Shekhani Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom229; (1966)68BOMLR582; 1967CriLJ856; ILR1966Bom1087
ORDER(1) This criminal revision application has been filed by the original accused No. 2. Accused No, 2, his father accused No. 1, and 5 other persons were tried by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Murud for offences of house trespass and lurking house trespass punishable under Ss. 448 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under S. 448 of the Indian Penal code, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs,. 125, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The remaining accused were acquitted by learned Magistrate. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went in appeal to the Sessions Court of Kolaba. Accused No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge of Kolaba, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. From this order accused No. 2 has approached this Court in revision.(2) The alleged trespass was in Municipal House No. 11-59 situate at Mur...
Kamani Employees Vs. Kamani Engineering Corporation, Ltd. and ors. Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR97]; (1966)IILLJ446Bom
Tambe, C.J.1. This is a petition by the union of the workmen working in the engineering industrial concern of the respondent 1, Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. Respondent 2 is the industrial tribunal and respondent 3 is the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners by the petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek to get quashed the notification issued by the State Government on 18 January, 1964 and also seek to get quashed the order made by the industrial tribunal overruling the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners. Facts in brief are : The petitioners raised certain disputes for revision of wage-scales, dearness allowance, incentive production bonus scheme, etc., both in respect of daily-rated workmen as well as monthly-paid employees. These disputes were raised in February, 1961. Ultimately the State Government by its order No. AJK 2262-LAB-II, dated 18 December, 1962, referred certain disputes to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. The dispu...
Ratanji Ardeshir Dubash Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1966
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR304
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The petitioners, who are trustees of A. B. Dubash Trust and as such own a building called 'Villa Ramona' situate at Nepean Sea Road, Bombay, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the allotment order dated November 19, 1965, whereby the requisitioned premises (Flat No. 3 in 'Villa Kamona') have been allotted to Dr. V. S. Sheth, on the ground that the said allotment is contrary to the public purpose, namely, 'housing a Bombay State Government servant' for which the said premises were requisitioned by the then Bombay Government under its requisition order dated January 31, 1957, inasmuch as Dr. Sheth is not a State Government servant but a private individual.2. The short facts giving rise to this petition may be stated. The premises in question fell vacant in or about December 1956, and the petitioners as the trustees gave intimation of that vacancy to the Government of Bombay. On January 31, 1957, in exercise of the powers conferred...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Kulkarni (R.N.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: [1968(16)FLR219]; (1967)ILLJ132Bom
Bal, J. 1. This application raises an interesting point of considerable importance and the facts out of which it arises may be briefly stated as follows. 2. The petitioner is a local authority, being the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and respondents 2 to 144 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) are clerks employed in its different departments. The last general elections to the State Legislative Assembly and the House of the People were held on 25 February, 1962 which happened to be a Sunday. Prior to those elections the Collector of Bombay wrote to the municipal commissioner on 26 December, 1960 requesting him. 'to spare the maximum possible number from the staff in various branches of the corporation to work as presiding officers.' 3. The request was made under S. 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. By the same letter the Collector requested the municipal commissioner to supply 'an exhaustive list of the maximum number of persons that could be mustered...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharad Keshav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom52; (1966)68BOMLR516; 1967CriLJ165
ORDER(1) The Opponents 1 to 5 along with 5 other persons were prosecuted for an offence under S. 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Out of these 10 persons, Sundhakar was also prosecuted separately for an offence under S. 4 of the said Act.(2) The pleas of the accused were recorded by the learned Magistrate on 2-8- 65. The particulars which were read and explained to the accused were in these terms.'Offence complained of - Under S. 5 P. G. Act. You all were found in common gaming house in Sudhakar Dhenge's rented house in 13-7-65 at 9 P.M.'Plea recorded for accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 is 'I am guilty'. As regards the accused No. 9 it is 'I plead guilty'. On the basis of this admission of the guilt, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9, namely the present opponents Sharad, Mohammad Pasha, Shakil Akhtar, Habibuddin and Shrikrishna under S. 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in def...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›