Mumbai Court March 1968 Judgments
Maharashtra State Electricity Board (Through Deputy Chief Engineer, Vi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR206; (1969)IILLJ105Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of these seventeen petitions filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, each against a separate employee. 2. Each of the respondents in these petitions was an employee of the petitioner-Board on the date they filed applications before the District Industrial Court under S. 41 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. The application are, more or less, identical in form and substance and also the reliefs which they claimed. The grievance of the contesting respondents in each of these cases appears to be based on a common contention that whereas under the conditions of service governing them either at the time of appointment or when they filed the petitions they were not required to appear at any departmental test or examination in lower accounts, each of them has been told to appear for such an examination and their promotion, confirmation or eligibility for drawing the increments in the post they we...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Owning the South Eastern Railway Administration Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR123; 1968MhLJ678
1. This is a second appeal by the Union of India owning the South-Eastern Railway Administration and the Central Railway Administration against a decree for damages which was passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff in his capacity as sole proprietor of the shop 'Ramkrishna Ramnath' and as owner of 305 bags of bidi tobacco sued the appellants-defendants for damages on account of negligence or misconduct of the Railway Administration alleging that 39 bags of the consignment which was booked on 6th June 1956 Enplane out agency to Tirora, was damaged by water. These bags were delivered on 18th June 1956 in a damaged condition and the Railway authority had assessed the damage at 13 per cent on each bag. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 1543.1.0 as damages including notice charges.3. The main contention of the defendants was that the goods were booked at the owner's risk rate and therefore they were not liable ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Ganpatrao Samel Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR500; 1967MhLJ9
Patel, J.1. These three petitions are filed by rice millers and raise important questions regarding the validity of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Stocks Declaration and Procurement and Disposal, Acquisition, Transport and Price Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1966) and the action taken by the State Government thereunder. This Order was promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended from time to time. Shortly stated, by this Order the Government prohibited all private dealings in certain kinds of foodgrains and made it compulsory to be sold to the Government or its agent. The said Order contains 20 clauses and, as now finalised, it applies to paddy and rice, Jowar, Nagli, Pohas and Kurmuras. Clause 3 of the said Order requires periodical declarations of stocks by every person who holds more than ten quintals of the scheduled foodgrains. Clause 4 gives power to the Collector or any officer authorised by him to call for declaration ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Hariba Londhe Vs. Jagannath Eamghandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR12; 1969MhLJ249
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This petition has been referred to a Full Bench because it involves consideration of the provisions of Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as amended and because the Division Bench before whom it came up for hearing considered that there was a conflict of decisions between Khandubhai Gulabbhai v. Maganlal Ranchhodji (1958) Special Civil Application No. 2517 of 1958, decided by Chainani Actg. C.J. and Shelat J., on October 25,1958 (Unrep.) and Kisan Sampat Bonge v. Dhondy Ramchandra (1961) Special Civil Application No. 309 of 1961, decided by Patel and Chandrachud JJ., on July 14, 1901 (Unrep.) on the one hand and the decisions in Bajaram Sakharam Pattil v. Ganpati Shripati Kadam (1957) Special Civil Application No. 2189 of 1957, decided by Dixit and Badkas JJ., on November 22, 1957 (Unrep.) and Suryakant Bhanudas Jadhav v. Ganpat Shankar Rajmane (1962) Special Civil Application No. 1063 of 1961, decided by Tambe and Chandrachud JJ., on Januar...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Gangaram Dhorb Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR375
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Originally five accused were prosecuted and the charges were under Section 148, Section 302 read with Section 149 and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against them.3. The prosecution alleged that there was a long standing dispute between the deceased Khandu and accused No. 1 Nana and the members of his family. This dispute related to the ownership and user of survey Nos. 1369/1 and 1369/2. Admittedly, survey No. 1369/1 is a pasture land and is known as lenddara. Survey No. 1369/2 is a cultivable land and it is known as 'Pandiche Waver'. The deceased Khandu has two brothers Tukaram and Pandu. Accused No. 1 Nana Gangaram Dhore along with one Gopal Takalkar purchased both these lands from Pandurang alone some time in 1948. He claims to be in exclusive possession of these lands as ...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeorao Madhavrao Thakre Vs. Dulaji Sitaram Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR843; 1969MhLJ74
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. The judgment in this special civil application shall also govern the disposal of the reference in special civil application No. 103 of 1968.2. In both these special civil applications we are called upon to construe the expression 'total number of Councillors' contained in Section 49, Sub-section (7) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. The circumstances under which the point arises may be briefly stated as follows:After the result of the general elections was announced in May 1967, the Nasik Zilla Parishad, which was constituted under Section 9 of the Act, met on August 12, 1967, to elect its President and Vice-President. The President elected is respondent No. 1 in special civil application No. 102 of 1968 and the Vice-President elected is respondent No. 1 in special civil application No. 103 of 1968. Less than three months after the election of the President and the Vice-President a requisition was sent by 34 Councillors of the Zilla Paris...
Tag this Judgment!Kailas Sizing Works Vs. Municipality of Bhivandi and Nizampur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom127; (1968)70BOMLR554; ILR1969Bom564; 1968MhLJ916
Nain, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, dismissing their suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,012 as damages for loss caused to their property on 5th July 1963 by flood water, filed against the Municipality of Bhivandi and Nizampur. The plaintiffs allege that they have suffered the loss on account of the negligence of the defendants.2. The plaintiffs occupy a permanent structure on Yacoob Road at Bhivandi wherein they carry on the business of sizing yarn. They had machinery, raw materials and other goods stored in the premises at all material times prior to and during the month of July 1963. There is a gutter about 1 1/2 feet wide running along side Yacoob Road between the said Yacoob Road and their factory premises. On the other side of the road, there is an open nullah running parallel to the road. This nullah is about 40 to 45 feet wide and provides a passage for dirty water and rain water passing to the cr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Purshottam N. Amersey a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR180(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The only question referred for our decision is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms of annexure 'A', the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest of the assessee under the trust had no value ?' 2. This question has been framed in connection with the assessments to wealth-tax of two individuals who are brothers, Purshottam N. Amersey and Manoranjan N. Amersey, but at the hearing before the Tribunal and before us it was agreed that the facts and circumstances in the cases of both the assessee are the same and that the documents which fall to be considered in each case are also similar. Therefore, in the statement of the case reference has been made to the facts of only one case, that of the assessee, Purshottam, and we shall also for the purposes of the decision of this reference refer to the facts and circumstances of that case. 3. Purshottam Amersey and his brother were partners along with others in Mess...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Hajubhai Shaukh (A) Vs. Shiraj Kasim Nadar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR704; [1969(18)FLR238]; (1969)ILLJ226Bom
Patel, J. 1. These special civil applications are brought to this Court challenge the decision of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act on an interlocutory question, namely, whether the authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications made by the respondent workmen in each case. Each of respondents 1 in the applications was working with each of the petitioners in each of these applications, who are running different factories. Respondent 1 in Special Civil Application No. 1389 of 1967 claimed that he was entitled to notice-pay, retrenchment compensation, leave wages and bonus for the year 1963-64 at 20 per cent. of the pay and compensation on termination of his service. The petitioner admitted the employment of the workman, but contended that on 22 March, 1965 the workman left the factory without permission and thereafter he did not attend the factory at all, In short, his contention was that the workman voluntarily abandoned the employment of the petitioner. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sophia Reuben and anr. Vs. Gokhale (V.V.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ79Bom
Nain, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner 1, who is an employee of respondent 2 for the issue of a writ of mandamus against respondent 1, who is the Collector of Thana, directing him to make the recovery of the amount under a certificate issued under S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. The facts leading to this petition are : that under the settlement dated 28 February, 1963 entered into between respondent 2 and its workmen certain amounts were payable to the workmen. The workmen made applications under S. 33C of the said Act for recovery of these amounts. Those applications were decided by the first labour court, Bombay, in favour of the workmen including petitioner 1. Four certificates under S. 33C of the said Act were issued by the first labour court directing respondent 1 to recover the amounts thereunder as arrears of land revenue. The certificates were dated 16, 18 and 25 April and 13 August, 1964. It is the case of petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »