Mumbai Court April 1976 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.
Kalavati T. Sanghvi Vs. Habib Khan Yusuf Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR528
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an action for damages in negligence arising out of a collision on the highway in the course of which the deceased, 'who was a passenger in one of the vehicles concerned in the collision, suffered serious injuries and died five days later. The plaintiffs, who are the widow and sons of the deceased, have framed this suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, as is usually done in these Courts.2. After issues were settled, Mr. Tijoriwala stated that he wanted to address an argument to me on the question of burden of proof as, in his opinion, in view of the admitted facts appearing on the pleadings of all the parties, this is a case in which the maxim res ipsa loquitur is applicable, and the burden of proof is on the defendants. It was the contention of Mr. Tijoriwala that his clients need not go into the box at all, or lead any evidence in support of their case, by reason of the applicability of the said Latin maxim. Mr. Tijoriwala addressed me for quite some time o...
Smt. Kusumlataben D. Kamani Vs. Prafulchandra Narbheram Kamani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR284
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a Notice of Motion for a decree in terms of the award in which some interesting questions of law have been raised on behalf of the defendant who has opposed it. Disputes and differences having arisen between the two parties, as representing two branches of the same family, regarding the estate of the deceased Narbheram, by an arbitration agreement dated June 15, 1973, all those disputes were referred to the arbitration, of one Rule R.K. Kamani who was respected as the head of the family. The said R.K. Kamani made his award on December 27, 1973, the greater part of which has already been carried out. The said arbitrator filed his award in this Court on February 27, 1975, and the present Notice of Motion has thereafter been taken out for a judgment being pronounced in accordance with that award and a decree being passed thereon under Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. It is the contention of Mr. A.N. Modi on behalf of the plaintiff that the terms of S...
Kalpana Dresses Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR359; 1977MhLJ151
Vaidya, J.1. The short point which arises in this Letters Patent Appeal, against the order of summary dismissal of First Appeal No. 638 of 1975, is whether the appellant M/s Kalpana Dresses, are a factory, within the meaning of Employees' State Insurance Act.2. On a careful consideration of the evidence of Ratansi Raghvji Sawla, a partner of the appellant's firm, M/s Kalpana Dresses and Mrs. Rego, Assistant Regional Director, on behalf of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the State Government Employees Insurance Court, Bombay, held in its judgment dated October 8, 1975, that at least from October 6, 1972, when Mrs. Rego visited the factory of Kalpana Dresses the factory was liable to be covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, as there were then twenty-one persons working. It also held that ironing was done with the aid of power.3. Mr. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the appellant, challenged the said judgment firstly on the ground that the Employees...
Aminchand Pyarelal Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR1
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs for order for stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the counterclaim filed by the first defendant herein which raises an interesting question of law in regard to the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a counter-claim. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of the Motion are, that the plaintiffs, who are importers and dealers in iron and steel, submitted a tender to supply M.S. angles, channels and plates of various sizes to the Iron and Steel Controller who is an officer of the first defendant Union, and that tender was accepted on behalf of the President of India under contract No. CS/48/N/58/8/1023 dated June 17/23, 1958. At all times material to the suit, the import and sale of iron and steel goods was controlled by the provisions of the Iron and Steel Order. One of the terms of the said tender was that the plaintiffs would import angles, channels ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›