Mumbai Court March 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sk. Jumman Sk. Amir Vs. Shahajahanbi Suleman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR65; 1972MhLJ261
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this appeal by the father and the mother of deceased Suleman against the order dated October 28, 1967, made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing that from out of the compensation fixed at Rs. 7,000, Rs. 6,000 should be paid to the respondent widow of Suleman and Rs. 1,000 should be paid to Shaikh Jumman, the father of Suleman. Mr. Bashiruddin Ahmed has contended that the distribution of the compensation between the respondent widow of Suleman and Shaikh Jumma is inequitable and without giving sufficient importance to the provisions in Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act defining the phrase 'Dependent'. The learned advocate submitted that in spite of the fact that the respondent had admitted in her statement exh. 4 that she had remarried within four months after the death of Suleman, the learned Judge made division of compensation in entirely inequitable manner.2. Now, in connection with these submissions, it requires to be noticed that...
Indian Central TIn Works Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR61; 1972MhLJ279
K.K. Desai, J.1. An interesting question as to the scope of the liability of an employer to pay damages under Section 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has arisen in this first appeal.2. One Ismail Abdul Karim had been in the employment of the appellant for more than 5 years prior to June 6, 1964. On June 6, 1964, at about 2.30 p.m., whilst this workman was working on a power press for embossing tin sheets, he attempted to remove obstacle in the way of the press and was injured and his right hand fingers were completely amputed. He suffered from certain further injuries. In connection with his injuries, he was paid the aggregate sum of Rs. 4,387.25 by the Corporation. The Corporation, therefore, filed Application No. 104 of 1965 under the provisions of Section 66 of the above Act alleging that the workman had suffered from employment injuries. The ease of the Corporation was that these i...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas72(Bom)
Mody, J. 1. These are two appeals by the Union of India and the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Western Region, Bombay, against a common judgment but two separate orders passed in Company Petitions Nos. 159 of 1970 and 161 of 1970, the first filed by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'Telco', and the second by the Central Bank of India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the old Central Bank', whereby Mr. Justice Nain as the company judge sanctioned under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, an arrangement in the nature of a scheme of amalgamation between the two companies, negativing the contentions of the appellants that the court should not sanction the scheme without prior approval of the Central Government as required under section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Monopolies Act'. We also propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment as both the m...
The Union of India and anr. Vs. Tata Engineering, Locomotive Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom301; (1972)74BOMLR1; ILR1972Bom228
Mody, J.1. These are two appeals by the Union of India and the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Western Region, Bombay, against a common Judgment but two separate orders passed in Company Petitions Nos. 159 of 1970 and 161 of 1970, the first filed by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'Telco', and the second by the Central Bank of India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the old Central Bank', whereby Mr. Justice Nain as the Companies Judge sanctioned under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, an arrangement in the nature of a scheme of amalgamation between the two companies, negativing the contentions of the appellants that the Court should not sanction the scheme without prior approval of the Central Government as required under Section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practices Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Monopolies Act'. We also propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common Judgment as both the ma...
Vishnu Shantaram Desai Vs. Indira Anant Patkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom207; (1971)73BOMLR792; ILR1972Bom592; 1972MhLJ124
Kantawala, J. 1. These three special civil applications are referred to a Full Bench as they involve a question as to proper construction of the provisions of Section 32 - F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner in each of these applications is either a landlord or a tenant belonging to the category specified in the said Section 32 - F.2. In Special Civil Application No. 2198 of 1966 proceedings under Section 32 - G of the Act were initiated by the Additional Mahalkari and Agricultural Lands Tribunal No. IV. Kudal, for determining the price payable by the tenant in respect of Survey No. 5, Pot Hissa No. 3, admeasuring 25-1/2 gunthas situate at Village Pat, Mahal Kudal. On the Tillers' Day i.e., on April 1, 1957 respondent No. 1 Shrimati Indira Anant Patkar and her two minor sons were the tenants of the land. Landlord Vishnu Shantaram Desai contended before the Tribunal that the tenant...
Gulabchand Hiralal Vs. Hakimchand Chothmal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom192; (1971)73BOMLR882; ILR1972Bom585; 1972MhLJ156
ORDER1. This is a revisional application on behalf of the original petitioner in application Ex. 413 in Insolvency Petitions Nos. 12 and 14 of 1935. The petitioner had obtained a decree for Rupees 27,000/- in Special Suit No. 349 of 1930 against Chhaganlal Hardee in February, 1935. He then filed Insolvency Petition No. 12 of 1935 on March 14, 1935, for adjudication of the judgment- debtor Chhaganlal Hardee. Another Insolvency Petition No. 14 of 1935 was filed by other two creditors of Chhaganlal. The petitions were consolidated and by an order of adjudication dated July 30, 1936, Chhaganlal was adjudicated an insolvent. The order of adjudication provided that Chhaganlal should make an application for his discharge from insolvency within one year. This time expired on July 30, 1937. Chhaganlal's appeals against the order of adjudication were dismissed in 1938. Chhaganlal died in December in 1938. Chhaganlal died in December 1942 without making an application for his discharge. Several i...
Wasudeo Mahadeo Wattamwar and anr. Vs. Govindsingh Rupsingh Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Bom298; 1971MhLJ58
1. The petitioners in this case applied to the Tahsildar for resumption of land on the ground of personal cultivation against the respondent Govindsingh. The tenancy Naib Tahsildar rejected the application by order dated 15-4-1963 on the ground that the petitioners had acquired the land by transfer after the 1st day of August 1953 and the rights of the respondent as a protected lessee had come into existence before the transfer of the land. This order was challenged in appeal before the Collector by the petitioners. The appeal was fixed for hearing before the Special Deputy Collector on 13-4-1964 on which date the petitioners remained absent. The appeal was, therefore dismissed in default on 13-4-1964.2. The petitioners then put in an application on 21-4-64 for restoration of the appeal on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 Wasudeo was ill on 13-4-1964 and. therefore, was unable to attend the Court on that day. The petitioner No. 2 is a minor and his interests were looked after by th...
The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Company Ltd., Nagpur Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: 1972MhLJ987; [1972]29STC74(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of the references made by the Sales Tax Tribunal to this court in four cases. Though several questions were raised before the Sales Tax Tribunal and six of them have been referred for decision before the Division Bench in the sales tax references made to this court, the present reference by the Division Bench to the Full Bench is only upon one question, and that question is question No. (2) involved in all the references before the Division Bench. That question is as follows : 'Was the Tribunal right in holding that Explanation (II) to section 2(g), as was originally embodied in the Sales Tax Act, 1947, got restored on the statute-book because of the unconstitutionality of the substituted explanation enacted in the Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1949 ?' 2. Though one common question has been referred in all the references, each reference involves a different period of assessment as shown below : Reference No. Period involved. 17 of 1964. 1-1-1947 t...
Raghunath Gopal Daftardar Vs. Sau, Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom132; (1971)73BOMLR840; ILR1972Bom511; 1972MhLJ110
1. This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Poona, in Civil Appeal No. 646 of 1967 on his file from the decree in Marriage Petition No. 18 of 1963 of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Poona. It arises this way.2 The appellant-petitioner was married to the respondent at Poona on 30th March 1962 according to Hindu religious rites. The petitioner alleged that during the negotiations as well as at the time of the solemnization of the marriage the respondent and her parents not only concealed the fact that she was suffering from epilepsy since childhood but also misrepresented to him and his father that she was quite healthy. Within a fortnight after the marriage which was consummated in the first week of April 1962, the respondent started getting epileptic fits. These fits recurred in the months of April, May and June at an interval of about a fortnight. The petitioner further alleged that in the first week of July 1962, he...
Bindichand Hiralal Bhandari Vs. Babu Sadashiv Borhade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom232; (1971)73BOMLR887; 1972MhLJ251
ORDER1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. On 1-9-1964 he filed a suit for possession of a shop situate in Ganji Market, Saraf Bazzar, Ward No. 6 of Ahmednagar City, bearing Municipal Committee No. 2801, City Survey No. 3093, against two defendants under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act;) on the sole ground of defendant No. 1 tenant having failed to pay arrears of rent for more than six months in spite of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act. It was alleged that defendant No. 2 was running the said shop as the servant of the defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 1 did not contest and the proceedings were se ex parte against him. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit, pleading that he was a lawful sub-tenant and had paid rent to defendant No. 1 and cannot be evicted for breach of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act by defendant No. 1.2. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff that defendant N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »