Mumbai Court July 1969 Judgments
Popular Process Studio Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: [1971(21)FLR101]; (1970)IILLJ336Bom
1. These two appeals arise out of almost identical facts and raise a common question of law for decision. They arise out of two applications filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to the 'E.I. Court'), under S. 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act XXXIV of 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application leading to A.O. No. 5 of 1968 was against Messrs. Popular Process Studio and its proprietor Mukund Kashalkar for the recovery of Rs. 1,567.63 as employees' contribution for the period from August 19, 1959 to August 31, 1964, and was filed on January 25, 1965, while the application leading to A.O. No. 6 of 1968 was against Messrs. Dawn Mills Co. (Ltd.) and its Director Ramniwas Ramnarain for the recovery of Rs. 7,252.13 as employees' contribution for the period from October 3, 1954 to March 31, 1960, and was filed on June 23, 1964....
Tag this Judgment!Popular Process Studio and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom413; (1970)72BOMLR320; 1970MhLJ780
1. These two appeals arise out of almost identical facts and raise a common question of law for decision. They arise out of two applications filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as the 'E. I. Court'), under Section 75(2) of the Employees' 'State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The application leading to A.O. No. 5 of 1968 was against Messrs. Popular Process Studio and its proprietor Mukund Kashalkar for the recovery of Rs. 1567.63 as employees' contribution for the period from August 19, 1959, to August 31, 1964, and was filed on. January 25, 1965, while the application leading to A.O. No. 6 of 1968 was against Messrs. Dawn Mills Co. (Ltd.) and its Director Ramniwas Ram Narayan for the recovery of Rs. 7252.13 as employees' contribution for the period from October 3, 1954, to March 31. 1960, and was filed on Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Rikhabchand and Co. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom307; (1970)72BOMLR150; ILR1970Bom1024; 1970MhLJ387
Tarkunde, J. 1. The petitioners in these revision applications had filed suits in the Poona Small Cause Court against the Unionof India representing one or more of the Railway Administrations for damages caused by loss or injury to goods carried by railway. The suits having been dismissed by the Trial Court the petitioners have approached this Court in revision. When the revision applications reached hearing before Mr. Justice Abhyankar, the learned Judge felt some doubt on whether such suits could be entertained by a Court of Small Causes. The learned Judge, therefore, referred these revision applications for the decision of a Division Bench. 2. Before dealing with these revision applications on the merits, It Is desirable to consider whether the suits were rightly entertained by the Poona Small Cause Court. The jurisdiction of the Court to try these suits was not questioned on behalf of the Union of India at the trial. To bur knowledge suits of this nature have been always entertaine...
Tag this Judgment!Dadarao Son of Kashiram and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom144; (1970)72BOMLR246; ILR1970Bom540; 1969MhLJ813
Padhye, J. 1. The facts in the two cases slightly differ, but that does not make any difference in the legal position to be considered in these two cases and hence both these special civil applications are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Special Civil Appln. No, 1026 of 1966 one Parwatabai, wife of Pundlikrao Gawande, owned 114 acres and 38 acres of land at various village in taluq Akot, District Akola The ceiling area for dry crops land in this area is 78 acres. That was the land held by Parwatabai as on 4-8-1959 and she continued to hold the same till 26-1-1962. Parwatabai submitted the return, as required by Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) on 26-7-1962. On this return enquiry was started by the Deputy Collector, Akot and during the pendency of this enquiry, the holder Parwatabai died on 3-9-1963, Before her death, however, she executed a will on 1-9-1963 under which the present petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Haribhau Shinde and anr. Vs. F.H. Lala Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom213; (1970)72BOMLR192; ILR1970Bom1001
K. K. Desai, J.1. A somewhat difficult and ticklish question of the effect of the provisions in Sections 9A and 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the industrial relations between workmen and employers has been raised in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, whereby the 2nd petitioner (being a registered trade Union) representing the workmen of the 2nd respondent employers has challenged the validity and correctness of the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated May 27, 1968 (in the matter of Application I. T. No. 177 of 1968), whereby the Tribunal rejected the contention of the 2nd petitioner Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') that the above Application No. 177 of 1968 was misconceived and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in that application.2. The short facts leading to the institution of the above application may be summarised as follows;By what is mentioned as Baxi award made in I. T. No, 411 of 1958 on December 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rustom K. Karanjia and anr. Vs. Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom424; (1970)72BOMLR94; ILR1971Bom324; 1970MhLJ404
Palekar, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 arises out of a libel suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, on the original side of this Court in respect of an Article published in the English Weekly ''Blitz' in its issue of 24th September 1960. The plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 300000/- as general damages and prayed for an injunction. A decree has been passed for the full claim with costs and future interest against defendants 1, 2 and defendant No. 4 who is respondent No. 2(a) in the appeal.2. The plaintiff is a prominent businessman and industrialist of Bombay. At the time of the suit he was a partner in, a firm which had been carrying on the business of Managing Agents of four textile mills. He was a Director of the Bank of India and of several other well-known companies. He was also the Chairman of the Textile Control Board which had been set up by the Government during the last World War. He was also the Chairman of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation.3. Defendant No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Rama Sambrekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR154; 1970MhLJ283
Wagle, J.1. Since these two revision applications raise an exactly similar point, these two applications are being disposed of by one judgment although the incidents are different and the accused are also different.Criminal R.A. No. 249 of 1969.The prosecution case was that upon information received by P. 8. I. Dixit of Savantwadi that rice was being transported from Kolhapur District to Savant-wadi, a truck MYD 4482 was stopped at the Octroi Naka within Savantwadi limits on September 9, 1967 at about 4 a.m. On a search being made, it was found that the truck contained 80 bags of rice. Those bags were attached after a panchnama thereof was made and the three persons in the truck- accused No. 1 who was the driver, accused No, 2 who was the cleaner and accused No. 3 who was sitting by the side of the driver-were put under arrest. The three accused were then charged under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Food-grai...
Tag this Judgment!Parshuram Ramchandra Mohite and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1296
ORDERWagle, J. 1. Since these two revision applications raise an exactly similar point, these two applications are being disposed of by one judgment although the incidents are different and the accused are also different.Criminal Revision Application No. 249 of 1969.2. The prosecution case was that upon in. formation received by P. S. I. Dixit of Savantwadi that rice being transported from Kolhapur District to Savantwadi, a truck MYD 4482 was stopped at the Octroi Naka within Savantwadi limits on September 9, 1967 at about 4 am. On a search being made, it was found that the truck contained 80 bags of rice, Those bags were attached after a panchanama there. of was made and the three persons in the truck accused No. 1 who was driver, accused . No. 2 who wag the cleaner and accused No. 8 who was sitting by the side of the driver-were put under arrest, The three accused were then charged under Section 7 (i)(a)(ii) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause 12 of the Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Mariumbi Aslamkhan and anr. Vs. Vithoba Yeshwanta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom405; (1970)72BOMLR142; 1970MhLJ355
Tarkunde, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhir, dismissing a suit filed in forma pauperis for 'possession and mesne profits' of a numberof agricultural lands. The lands aresituate at village Patharwala Bujurg inthe Bhir district They are about 196acres in extent and are assessed at aboutRs. 285/-.2. The lands originally belonged to the ancestors of some of the defendants, particularly defendants Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. They were, however, in the possession of one Din Mohammed Khan and his brother Fakir Mohammed Khan and the latter's sons Aslamkhan and' Mominkhah for a period of more than 20 years before 1948. The first plaintiff is the wife of the said Aslamkhan, the son of Fakir Mohammed Khan. The second plaintiff is a minor daughter of the first plaintiff. Two or three months prior to the Police Action (which took place in September 1948); Fakir Mohammed Khan and his sons Aslamkhan and Mominkhan were murdered and their hou...
Tag this Judgment!Maneklal V. Shah Vs. Jagdish C. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR719
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the daughter of the deceased one Parsanba for an order that the caveat dated June 12, 1969, which the applicant sought to be filed, but which the Testamentary Department of this Court refused to take on file, be directed to be taken on file, as well as for a consequential order that the time to file the affidavit in support of the caveat be extended to a suitable date.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of this application are that a petition was filed on January 27,1969 for the grant of probate of the will of Parsanba, by her son and daughter-in-law, and a citation was served on the applicant in the ordinary course. On June 10, 1969, a grandson and grand-daughter of the deceased filed a caveat. On June 12, 1969, the applicant filed a caveat, but the Testamentary Department refused to take the same on file and returned it to the applicant with an endorsement 'Please take out a Chamber Summons as there is alrea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »