Mumbai Court September 1966 Judgments
Modern Builders Vs. Hukmatrai N. Vadirani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom373; (1967)69BOMLR237
Tarkunde, J.(1) This appeal arises from an order of the Bombay City Civil Court refusing to set aside an award made on a Court reference.(2) The appellants before us were the original plaintiffs. They had filled a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court for the recovery of Rs. 14, 900 and odd from the defendant. When the suit reached hearing on 6th April, 1963, the matter in dispute was by consent of the parties referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, who were the two Advocates of the parties. One of the terms in the order of reference provided that the two arbitrators 'shall nominate an umpire'. The arbitrators did not appoint an umpire but heard the parties and received their evidence in three meetings held on the 13th the 16th and the 17th of May,. 1963. The time for making the award was enlarged by the Court by consent of parties. The arbitrators made an award on 28th November, 1964. by which they directed that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 8,500 with interest a...
Tag this Judgment!Bastyan Jao Patil Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1966
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR643
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the proceedings taken for acquisition of the lands of the petitioner. The lauds under acquisition are survey Nos. 34, H. No. 1, S, No. 35, H. No. 5, S. No. 35, II. No. 8 and portions of survey Nos. 53 and 52 in all admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas situated at Panch Pakhadi in Taluka and District Thana. The circumstances which led to the filing of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 9, 1960 and published in the Government Gazette on July 21, 1960 with a view to acquiring land for a company, M/s. Voltas Limited. That notification was not on the record but we have allowed the petitioner to present a copy thereof in the course of the arguments before us. Objections were invited, under Section 5A, on July 25, 1960 and filed by the petitioner, on August 30, 1960. The petitioner was then heard and was himself present. This was on October 17, 1960. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Labour Union and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ149Bom
1. There is no substance in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order dated 19 November, 1964, whereby the State Government, upon considering the report submitted to it by the conciliation officer, Bombay, under sub-section (4) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, stated : 'that it was satisfied that there was no case for reference of the disputes in connexion with the demands made against respondent 2 company on behalf of the petitioner-union for the reason that the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union, Bombay, a recognized union, had arrived at a settlement dated 12 August, 1964, with the management of the Company under S. 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act covering, inter alia, the demands which constitute the present dispute and the settlement has been accepted by the majority of the workmen.' 2. The only facts, which need be noticed in connexion with this petition are as follows. 3. Petitioner 1 is a trade union incorporated unde...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay Vs. Bharat Barrel a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom472; (1967)69BOMLR52; [1967(15)FLR369]; (1967)ILLJ625Bom; 1967MhLJ261; (2008)1SCC(L&S)558
Tarkunde, J.(1) This reference has been made under Section 81 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, for the decision of two questions of law. The questions submitted by the Employees' Insurance Court are:'(1) Whether rule 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Rules is ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government under Section 96(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act? (2) The circumstances which have led to these questions are very simple The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed an application) in the Employees' Insurance Court , Bombay, against the Opponents who are a manufacturing company for the recovery of the employees' contributions payable under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for the period from 1st September 1957 to 31st July 1963. The application was filed on 7th October 1963. Rule 17 of the Bombay Employees' Insurance Courts Rules, 1959 made by the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Village Panchayat, Dharna Wadhona, Buzruk and ors. Vs. Commissioner, N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom447; (1967)69BOMLR485; 1967MhLJ354
Abhyankar, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question of the interpretation of S. 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.(2) Petitioner No. 1 is a village panchayat of the local area of villages Dharna and Wadhona Buzruk, while petitioners 1(a) to 5 are some of the members of this village panchayats. They have challenged the validity of a notification No. C-27102 1686-VPT-64, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, dated 2nd December, 1965, in Part -I-A of the Nagpur Supplement , page 619. The relevant notification is as follows:-'No C-27102-1686-VPT-V-64. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bom III of 1959), read with Government Notification, Local Self-Government and Public Health Department No. VPS-2459-P, dated the 25th May, 1959, and after consultation with the Standing Committee of the Yeotmal Zilla Parishad and the Village Panchayats ...
Tag this Judgment!Sophy Kelly Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom156; (1967)69BOMLR186; ILR1967Bom1211; 1967MhLJ400
Tarkunde, J.(1) These two petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. They relate to a matter of vital importance connected with the maintenance of educational standards in secondary schools and the preservation of their internal autonomy. The question raised by the petitioners is whether the Maharashtra State of Board of Secondary Education can lawfully compel heads of secondary schools to forward the applications of candidates wishing to appear for the Secondary School Certificate Examination (S.S.C. Examination) irrespective of whether in the opinion of their teachers the candidates have made adequate academic progress during the final year.(2) The petitioner in Special Civil application No. 131 of 1966 is the Principal and Proprietress of Hill Grange, High School Bombay. The second petition (Special Civil Application No. 132 of 1966) is a representative petition filed by the trustees of the Bharda New High School, Bombay, on behalf of the about 230 members of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Raval ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1966
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR190]; (1966)IILLJ804Bom
1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-company (hereinafter referred to as the company) seeks an order of injunction to restrain the respondents from recovering from the company the aggregate sum of Rs. 11,237.97 demanded as damages by letters, dated 10 and 17 September, 1964, annexed as Ex. D to the petition. Towards the larger sum demanded for damages, the company had paid Rs. 14,157.58. By prayer (b) of the petition, the company has demanded refund of that amount as having been illegally recovered from the company by the respondents as damages. 2. The short facts leading to the institution of the petition may be summarized as follows : The company carries on business of manufacturing steel drums and barrels at its factory situate in Greater Bombay. Respondent 1 and 2 are in charge of the administration of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme (in the State of Maharashtra) enacted under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952. The above Act is admittedl...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Saroj Nayudu Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR637(Bom)
ABHYANKAR J. - This order deciding common question will dispose of both these petitions.In order to understand the nature of contest between the parties, a few facts giving rise to those petitions may be noticed.The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1065 of 1965 is a partnership firm called 'Shakti Offset Works'. It carries on business of lithography and art - printing. The petitioners years of account is ending Diwali. For the account year ending Diwali of 1958, the assessment year is 1959-60. The petitioner filed a return in 1960, in respect of that income for the account year ending Diwali 1958. The petitioner has shown a sum of Rs. 25,000 as loan incurred from some money-lenders at Bombay. The assessment was completed by the income-tax Officer on or about 13th September, 1963. In this order the Income-tax Officer recorded a finding that the item of Rs. 25,000 could not be allowed as admissible expenditure and he added it as concealed income. An appeal was preferred agains...
Tag this Judgment!Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (Private) Ltd., Bombay Vs. Habiba Eusoof K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: [1967(15)FLR327]; (1967)IILLJ84Bom
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings started by the widow of a deceased seacunny for compensation on account of death caused to her husband in the course of his employment with the opposite party, namely, Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (Private), Ltd., who hereafter will be referred to as the company. 2. The material facts lie within a narrow compass, any may be stated briefly as follows. The deceased, Eusoof Karbelkar, was employed as a seacunny on the ship S. S. Arbistan. Full course of the voyage of the ship is not on record. We, however, know that the ship had anchored at Antwerp and, later on, at London. Eusoof was on service on the said ship as a seacunny. The duties of a seacunny have been mentioned by witness. Harman Govind, who was examined for the applicants. According to him, one seacunny has to steer the wheel and the other seacunny has to attend as a stand-by. Each has to work 4 hours alternately. The total work is of 12 hours for each. The man who has to stand-by has to do...
Tag this Judgment!Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Habiba and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom404; (1967)69BOMLR179; 1967MhLJ464
(1) This appeal arises out of proceedings started by the widow of a deceased seacunny for compensation on account of death caused to her husband in the course of his employment with the opposite party namely Messrs. Mackinon Machenzie and co. Private Ltd., who hereafter will be referred to as the company.(2) The material facts lie within a narrow compass, and may be stated briefly as follows;The deceased, Eusoof karbelkar, was employed as a seacunny on the ship S. S. Arbistan. Full course of the voyage of the ship is not on record. We, however, know that the ship had anchored at Antwerp and, later on, at London, Eusoof was on service on the said ship as a seacunny. The duties of a seacunny have been mentioned by witness, Harman Govind, who was examined for the appellants. According to him one seacunny has to steer wheel and the other seacunny has to attend as a stand-by. Each has to work 4 hours for each. The man who has to stand by has to do polishing, scrapping, painting, stitching o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »