Mumbai Court September 1970 Judgments
Ramkisan Shivratan Pitti Vs. D.S. Dharmasthal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR257
Gatne, J.1. The petitioner, who was the accused in the Court below, has been found guilty under Section 21(7)(iv)(c) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment in default and this conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, in revision. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Courts below were in error in convicting him of the offence in question and in not properly considering his complaint filed under Section 101 of the Factories Act,2. The few facts, which it is necessary to note for the purpose of deciding this grievance, are that the petitioner-accused happens to be the manager of the Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd., Poona, which is a factory as defined in Section 2(m)(i) of the Factories Act. On the night of October 27, 1966, a worker named Kantilal Babu was directly feeding cotton to the porcupine opener machine. When the machine stopped, the...
Tag this Judgment!Pitamber Govinda Bhavsar Vs. Abdul Gafur Abdul Rajak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom43; (1971)73BOMLR466; ILR1971Bom1486
1. This is an appeal by the original defendant No. 5 against the appellate judgment dated 31st December 1962 of the learned Assistant Judge, Jalgaon. Respondents 1-A to 1-D are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff. Respondent No. 4 is the heir and legal representative of the original defendent No. 3. Respondents Nos. 2.3 and 5 are respectively the defendants Nos. 1,2, and 4. They have not appeared.2. On 8th May 1946 the plaintiff granted a lease of an areas admeasuring 115 feet x 125 feet out of survey No. 284/1 in Pachora. District Jalgaon, to the defendants 1 and 2 for constructing a cinema house thereon by lease deed Ex. 54. On 31st December 1948 defendants 1 and 2 assigned their leasehold rights to defendant No. 3 who constructed a cinema house on the said land. He gave the cinema running it. On 22nd November 1956 the defendant No. 3 assigned the leasehold rights to defendants Nos. 4 and 5. It appears, the defendants No. 3 had not paid rent to the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Pandurang Ramji Sanap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR245; 1971MhLJ408
Gatne, J.1. A question of some importance has been raised in this revision application and the question is whether in the name of exercising his power under Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is competent to a Sessions Judge to delete a charge altogether when an accused person is committed to his Court on that charge.2. The facts necessary to be stated for this purpose are briefly these. In 1967, one Sonu Bhuwad applied for a Congress ticket to contest the Zilla Parishad elections from Tala constituency in Taluka Mangaon, District Kolaba. He was not, however, successful in getting that ticket and hence he changed over to Sampurna Maharashtra Samiti and that party gave him the necessary ticket and he fought and won the election. As a result of the election, the Mangaon Taluka Panchayat Samiti which consisted of 17 seats comprised 9 Samiti candidates versus 8 Congress candidates. In that situation Sonu Bhuwad was naturally considered to be the decisive factor. Elections for...
Tag this Judgment!Housabai and ors. Vs. Jijabai Baba Powar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom98; (1971)73BOMLR667; ILR1972Bom80
1. This is an appeal against the appellate Judgment dated 31st December, 1961 of the learned District Judge, Satara. The appeal was originally filed by the three Defendants in the suit from which the present appeal arises. Defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of this appeal and his heirs and legal representatives were joined as respondents 2 to 7. The appeal was dismissed against the respondent No. 6 for want of prosecution. The respondents 2 to 5 and 7 have not appeared. Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff.2. The dispute is about three properties. They formed a part of the estate of one Shivaba who died in or around 1920. He was succeeded by his son Baba who died leaving him surviving his widow Goja. Goja alienated three of the properties of which her late husband Baba was the full owner. One of the properties was sold on 2nd May, 1942 to Defendant No. 1, another on 4th January 1943 to defendant No. 2 and a third on 23rd March 1943 to Defendant No. 3. After these alienation...
Tag this Judgment!Mangharam Chuharmal Vs. B.C. Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom46; (1971)73BOMLR140; ILR1972Bom30; 1971MhLJ369
1. These four petitions are filed by the 15 petitioners the alleged sub - tenants of Defendant No. 1 who are aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against them by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, I propose to dispose them of by one common judgment. The proceedings arise out of the ejectment suit filed by the respondents against Defendant No. 1 and the petitioners.2. A few facts leading to this litigation are as follows : The suit property comprises of an open plot of land measuring about 1050 square years situate at Mahul Road, Chembur, Greater Bombay. The respondents are the owners of this plot. In February 1954 Respondent No. 1 let out the said open plot of land to Defendant No. 1 Shaikh Hassan Shaikh Razack for his char - coal business. The agreed rent per month was Rs. 100/- and it is said that the lease was for a period of three years. No written document evidencing the lease is placed on th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamdas Motibhai Wani Vs. Shidya Jatrya Bhil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom65; (1971)73BOMLR458; ILR1971Bom1054; 1971MhLJ608
1. Both the Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Application have been filed by the original plaintiff. The Second Appeal arises from the suit he filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar, for recovery of Rs. 1,500/- from the four defendants in the said suit. The Civil Revision Application arises from the suit he filed for the recovery of Rs. 600/- in the same Court from the defendant in that suit. Both the claims are based on promissory notes which are executed after filing in blanks on a printed form, which is in Marathi. The printed form provides space for rate of interest in both in figures and in words and in both the promissory notes these blanks were not filled in. IN both the suits no interest was claimed upto the date of the suit. In both the suits, contentions were taken as to whether the transactions were governed by the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 31 of 1947, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'Money - Lenders Act.'). The l...
Tag this Judgment!The Paper Products Ltd. Vs. K.R. Powar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR434; (1971)ILLJ35Bom; 1971MhLJ908
Vaidya, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 in the above petition is the Paper Products Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Delhi, a branch office at Bombay and a factory at Roha in Kolaba District. Petitioner No. 2, Expert Services Bureau Private Ltd., is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Bureau') engaged in providing amongst other things a security personnel to industrial units in India and particularly in the State of Maharashtra. The Bureau was established in 1961 and is a member of the World Secret Service Association and of the Association of British Detectives, London, and claims to be represented in all parts of the world. The Bureau undertakes contracts of watch and ward and security work in industrial undertakings. In the course of its business the Bureau has undertaken contract of watch and ward and of security in respect of petitioner No. 1's factory at Roha. The Burea...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Atmaram Ghadgay Vs. the Corporation of the City of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom273; 1971MhLJ268
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the first appellate Court. The Plaintiff has filed a suit claiming Rs. 250/- as damages because the defendant-Corporation of the City of Nagpur had cut his water connection on 26-2-1959. The plaintiffs complaint is that he had paid all the municipal taxes including the water rate of all his four houses till the end of the financial year 1957-58. There were no arrears at the end of that year. It appears that he had also paid a sum of Rs. 150/- on 15-1-1959 towards the municipal taxes which were, however, appropriated to the knowledge of the plaintiff towards the conservancy and water and property taxes of houses Nos. 519 and 519/2. A balance of Rs. 19.02 was appropriated towards the conservancy tax of house No. 518/1. His grievance is that in spite of all this payment, he received a notice on 16-2-1959 purported to be issued under Rule 7 Section 114/115 (14) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Western India theatres Ltd. Vs. theatre Employees' Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1970
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ12Bom
G.N. Vaidya, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, Messers. Western India Theatres Limited, challenged the legality and correctness of an award dated October 27, 1969 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 4 of 1968. The said reference was made to the Tribunal by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of demands of the employees of the petitioners working in the New Empire Cinema at Bombay. The demands were for revision of wage scales with effect from June 1, 1966, adjustment increments, extra show allowances at the revised rates, officiating allowances, revision of provident fund contribution, gratuity, bank holidays, etc. which were classified as 23 demands by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and the materials placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal classified the New Empire Cinema as belongin...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Syed Nazir Syed Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR586; 1971MhLJ248
Bhole, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order passed by the 2nd Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in on appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and remanding the case for fresh trial, the State has come here in revision. The non-applicant Syed Nazir was convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and also a fine. When the accused went in appeal before the learned 2nd Extra Additional Sessions Judge, a ground was taken there that a formal charge was not framed during the trial against the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge decided this point without deciding the case on merits. According to him, although the procedure prescribed for the warrant-case was followed, yet, a formal charge, even though it was tried summarily, ought to have been framed. According to him, it was incumbent on the M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »