Mumbai Court August 1966 Judgments
K.K. Khadilkar Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom521; (1967)69BOMLR273; [1968(16)FLR208]; (1967)ILLJ139Bom; 1967MhLJ579
Chandrachud, J.(1) An industrial dispute between the Indian Home Pipe Company Limited and its workmen has been referred by State Government to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 19(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act'. One Mr. K. S. Mehta sought to represent the Company in the proceedings before the Tribunal but the workmen objected to his appearance on the ground that in view of the restrictive provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act he could not represent the company. The Tribunal has overruled the objection and being aggrieved thereby, the workmen have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.(2) K. S. Mehta was working as the Personnel Officer of the Company till the 1st of July 1965, when he resigned from that post. He is a lawyer by qualification being a graduate in law, but not being enrolled as an Advocate, he is not, in a true sense, a legal practitioner. He, however, frequently represents the Indian Hume Pipe Company befo...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Dyeing House Ltd. Vs. Shanker Vishnu Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas546(Bom); 1967MhLJ557
Chandrachud, J.1. This is an appeal by the official liquidators of a private limited company called 'the Pioneer Dyeing House Limited' from the judgment of the flearned District Judge, Poona, sanctioning a scheme for reconstruction of the company. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated thus: 2. In 1941, a partnership firm by the name of 'Pioneer Dyeing House' was formed for the purpose of dyeing, printing and processing Calico cloth. It consisted of three partners, D.B. Pathak, G.G. Ketkar and C.S. Pathak. On November 1, 1946, the firm was transformed into a private limited company with an authorised capital of Rs. 5,00,000. D.B. Pathak was appointed a managing director of the company, while the two other partners, G.G. Ketkar and C.S. Pathak, were appointed directors. On November 10, 195 2, a petition for winding up of the company was filed by two creditors of the company, Harihar Ramakrishna Karandikar and Anandibai Karandikar. On February 2, 1954, D.B. Pathak presented a sch...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Davar and anr. Vs. Shankar Vishnu MaraThe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom456; (1967)69BOMLR261
Chandrachud, J. (1) This is an appeal by the Official Liquidators of a private limited company called 'the Pioneer Dying House Limited' from the judgment of the learned District Judge Poona, sanctioning a scheme for reconstruction of the company. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated thus:(2) In 1964, a partnership firm by the name of 'Pioneer Dying House' was formed for the purpose of dyeing, printing and processing Calico cloth. It consisted of three partners D. B. Phatak, G. G. Ketkar and C. S. Phatak. On 1st of November , 1964, the firm was transformed into a Private Limited Company with an authorised capital of Rs. 5,00,000. D. B. Phatak was appointed a Managing Director of the company, while the two other partners, G. G. Ketkar and C. S. Phatkar were appointed Directors. On the 10th of November 1952, a petition for winding up of the company was filed by two creditors of the company, Harihar Ramkrishna Karandikar and Anandibai Karandikar. On the 2nd of February 1954, D. B...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Ramchand Waswani Vs. S.V. Bastikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom57; (1967)69BOMLR121; ILR1967Bom945; 1967MhLJ326
(1) These two matters arise out of an order passed by the Judge of the City Civil Court upon a Notice of Motion being taken out before him to set aside an ex parte decree. The learned Judge set aside the ex parte decree, refused immediate restitution which was sought but directed that the restitution be effected after the suit was disposed of if such restitution was necessary at that time. (2) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration that the defendant was her licensee, of the suit premises in 1959 and that the period of licence, viz., 11 months having expired the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit premises. The suit was contested by the defendant mainly on two grounds (1) that the defendant was a sub-tenant of the plaintiff and (2) that the premises being of a Co-operative Society the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide any disputes between the parties as the exclusive jurisdiction to decide such disputes was in the registrar of Co-operati...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal More Vs. R. Mirchandani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1966
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas39(Bom)
Mody, J. 1. One Mirchandani filed a suit, being Suit No. 3084 of 1960, in the City Civil Court at Bombay against three defendants. The three defendants were the United Mills Ltd., Nandlal More and Kudilal Seksaria. The plaintiff filed that suit in a representative capacity for himself and for and on behalf of, and for the benefit of, all the shareholders of the first defendant company, save and except the second and the third defendants and all other shareholders of the first defendant company supporting the second defendant. The main prayers in that suit were that the second defendant be restrained by an injunction from acting as director of the first defendant company and against the first defendant company from allowing the second defendant to act as its director, and for an order against the second defendant directing him to refund to the first defendant company all amounts rec covered by the second defendant as director's fees and remuneration, etc. The main ground on which the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Ambarsa Mamarde and ors. Vs. Authority Under Minimum Wages Ac ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR296; (1967)IILLJ388Bom; 1967MhLJ145
Patel, J.1. These four special civil applications arise out of the orders made by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act in respect of claims made by members of different departments of the opponent 'city of Nagpur Corporation.' The petitioners are in the employment of the Nagpur Corporation and item 6 in the schedule governs the petitioners; employment. The petitioners' working day is eight hours a day. They alleged that they were required to work on Sundays, a day of holiday fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by rules under S. 13 made by the Government, and since they were made to work on Sundays, they must be paid remuneration for the extra work, or in any event compensation for the work done on Sundays. 2. On behalf of the Corporation, two defences were set up, one that at least in respect of some work the notification of the State Government under S. 5 applied only to unskilled workers and, therefore, the skilled workers were out of the benefit of the notification and could not ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandial More Vs. Ramchandiram Mirchandani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom208; (1967)69BOMLR394
Mody, J.(1) One Mirchandani filed a suit being Suit No. 3084 of 1960 in the City Civil Court at Bombay against three defendants. The three defendants were the India United Mills Ltd., Nandlal More and Kudilal Seksaria. The plaintiff filed that suit in a representative capacity for himself and for and on behalf of, and for the benefit of, all the shareholders of the first defendant company, save and except the second and the third defendants and all other shareholders of the first defendant company supporting the second defendant. The main prayers in that suit were that the second defendant be restrained by an injunction from acting as a Director of the first defendant company and against the first defendant company from allowing the second defendant to act as its Director and for an order against the second defendant directing him to refund to the first defendant company all amounts recovered by the second defendant as Director's fees and remuneration, etc. The main ground on which the...
Tag this Judgment!Gujar (A.R.) Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR817; (1969)IILLJ509Bom
Kotval, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of Kantawalla, J., in Miscellaneous Petition No. 399 of 1963. The appeal involves a question as to the interpretation of S. 5 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The question arises upon the following facts. 2. G. R. Rao Brothers, the appellants, constitute a firm and carry on a tailoring business at Dadar, Bombay. They are being prosecuted in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Twelfth Court, Bandra, Bombay, upon the complaint of respondent 2, the Inspector appointed under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, and filed sometime in July 1963 (none of the parties has been able to give this Court the exact date although protracted arguments were addressed). According to the complaint, the appellants had not maintained a register of employment in form J or H prescribed by the rules made under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act in respect of certain named employees. The offence was detected on 15 June, 1963. T...
Tag this Judgment!Naik P.V. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ486Bom; 1967MhLJ510
K.K. Desai, J.1. The first ground is that the impugned notice of discharge dated April 5, 1966, is bad and illegal as being in contravention of the provisions in Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The submission is that the petitioners will stand discharged from Government service as from August 16, 1966, under the impugned notice. The petitioners will be deprived of their substantive posts and will have lost benefits under the service. This is per se punishment. The impugned notice, therefore, involves removal of the petitioners from service within the meaning of the article. The petitioners are sought to be removed without affording them an opportunity of showing cause in accordance with the article. The impugned notices of discharge contravene the article and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. The Government's reply is that, to the facts of the case, the provisions in the article are not attracted. The proposed discharge of the petitioners is a consequence of the proposed abol...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Narhar Deshmukh Vs. Kisanlal Sadasukhdas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom21; (1967)69BOMLR287; 1968CriLJ23; 1967MhLJ171
Patel, J.(1) This appeal from order arises under the following circumstances: The plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant-appellant are cultivators. An incident occurred between them on June 2, 1958. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents under sections 147, 323 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiffs were acquitted by the trial Court on May 18, 1959. The Defendant applied for leave to appeal to the High Court and the appeal was admitted, and after hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed on February 3, 1960. The plaintiffs field the suit for damages for malicious prosecution on February 3, 1961 before the expiry of the year from dismissal of the appeal, but much beyond one year from the date of acquittal. Relying on a decision of this Court in Purshottam Vithaldas v. Rajiv Hari, ILR 47 Bom 28 = AIR 1922 Bom 209, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court curiously enough by passing this decision and following the decision in Madan Mohan Sin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »