Mumbai Court September 1978 Judgments
The Coorla Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Trimbak Narayan Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR512
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Trimbak Narayan Deshmukh was working as a clerk with the petitioner mill. He filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming an amount of Rs, 1,291 as a benefit towards his sick leave under an award popularly known as clerks' award. According to the respondent-employee he was in employment of the petitioner-mill for twenty-two years and was drawing Rs. 271 per month as his basic salary plus dearness allowance. As per the clerks' award he was entitled to one month's sick leave for each year of service subject to maximum of twelve months sick leave in all, during the whole service, with half pay. He was sanctioned sick leave from March 14, 1969 to January 16, 1970 i.e. for a period of ten months and three days. Ultimately, he had to resign his job on January 22, 1970. According to the employee as the petitioner-mill did not pay him half pay during the said period he was constrained to file the application under...
Tag this Judgment!Sakinabibi Rajabali Bohri Vs. Gopal Hiru Gharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR519; 1979MhLJ302
Pendse, J.1. A short but interesting question falls for determination in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed to challenge the correctness of order dated January 8, 1974, passed by the Full Bench of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. It is necessary to set out a few facts to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties to these proceedings. The petitioner is owner of an agricultural piece of land bearing Gat No. 114/1 admeasuring 4 acres 24 gunthas and situated at village Usrali Khurd in Panvel taluka of Kolaba district. The land was leased to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was under their cultivation on April 1, 1957. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to purchase the land on the tillers' day and accordingly the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Panvel, commenced proceedings under the provisions of Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 declined to purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!B.M.K. Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR529; 1979MhLJ202
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The Petitioner in this case is a company registered under the Companies Act, having a Silk Weaving Factory at Kurla, Bombay. The petitioner received a notice from the respondent corporation dated May 31, 1971 calling upon them to pay employers' special contribution and employees' contribution as enumerated in the said letter. Thereafter the Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation issued two separate recovery certificates which are dated July 14, 1971 requesting the Naib Tahsildar, Recovery of Government Dues to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners then filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 on October 9, 1971, and the said application is still pending. The petitioner also filed an application before the Employees' Insurance Court on August 4, 1972 challenging the vires of Sections 45A, 45B and 73D of the Act and requested the Court to make a reference to the High Court unde...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwantlal Dhirajlal Chotai Vs. Jagannath Maruti Bhusari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR525; 1979MhLJ153
Kambli, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated November 28, 1975 holding that the present applicant-defendant No. 2 was not a debtor of the plaintiff (non-applicant No. 1), within the meaning of that expression in the Maharashtra Debt. Relief Act, 1975, and rejecting his application praying for his discharge from the liability said to be outstanding against him and for releasing the mortgaged property.2. Non-applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on the basis of the two mortgage-deeds from the present applicant and non-applicant No. 2 who was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court and in default praying that the mortgaged property be foreclosed.3. Non-applicant No. 2 (defendant No. 1) was the mortgagor. It appears that on August 20, 1969 he executed a sale-deed of the mortgaged-property in favour of the present applicant for Rs. 12,000. This property was already mortgaged to the plaintiff. By th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mannabi Shamsi Vs. B.B. Gujral
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR476
Naik, J.1. By this petition the petitioner who is the wife of one Qutubuddin, challenges the order of detention of her husband under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and prays for a writ of habeas corpus.2. On March 31, 1978 the said detenue was served with an order of detention dated March 29, 1978, purporting to have been made by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3(1) of the Act, wherein it was stated that respondent No. 1 having been specially empowered for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act, was satisfied that with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, the detenue be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison Bombay. The grounds on which the order of detention was based were supplied to the detenue on March 31, 1978. They are to this effect:1. You were detained on 6-2-1976 under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 in pursuance of Order No. DESK.XIX.SB.PSA. 017B da...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanshet Purushottam Gujar Vs. Jayashri Vasantrao Mahagaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom202
ORDER1. The petitioner before me is the tenant in a house situate at Shukrawar Peth, Pune 2; the number of the house is 836. The tenant was occupying one room therein at a small rent. The said house belonged prior' to 21st December 1966 to one Baburao Gokule. It is the respondent's case that by a deed of a sale dated 21st December 1966 executed on behalf of Gokule by his constituted attorney, one Yadav Krishnaji Konde, the said house was sold by Gokule to the respondent. The sale-deed is duly registered. This Konde purported to act on behalf of Gokule under a power of attorney dated 14th March 1966. The sale deed was Exhibit 90 and the power of attorney was Exhibit 89 in the trial Court. It appears that thereafter the new owner instituted several proceedings against the tenants in the said house. Ultimately after exchange of notice a number of suits were filed in all these suits theallegation was that the tenants were defaulters inasmuch as they failed to pay the rent to the new owner....
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Krishna Kapur Vs. Vachha and Co. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom33; 1978MhLJ767
Deshmukh, J.1. The facts of this litigation are few and simple. Vachha and Co., the 1st respondents in this proposed appeal, were engaged as Attorneys by one lady Bai Hamida Begum alias Kishori Sheikh Alladatta, a Pakistani national, at present residing at Karachi in Pakistan. The present appellant Jag-dish Krishna Kapur was the power of attorney holder of this lady. The lady had filed two writ petitions on the Original Side of the High Court for which Vachha & Co. were engaged as Advocates and Solicitors. All the instructions were given from time to time by the present appellant Jagdish. In a contract made with the Solicitors' firm Bai Hamida Bagum was undoubtedly liable to pay all the costs and charges of the firm. In addition, the appellant also agreed personally to pay all the costs and charges of the firm.2. After the litigation ended, the Taxing Master was approached by the respondents for preparation of their bill of costs. Throughout the proceedings, the present appellant was k...
Tag this Judgment!District Judge Vs. Peader M.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1978
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR324
P.S. Shah. J.1. The District Judge, Poona has submitted a report under Section 26 of the Bombay Pleader Act, 1920, to take disciplinary action against one Shri M who has been enrolled as a pleader under the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920.2. The facts are not in dispute. In the year 1969, Shri M was working as a senior Police Prosecutor in Ratnagiri District. The allegation against him was that he demanded an amount of Rs. 100/- as a bribe for getting a couple of cases adjourned and for trying to get acquittal of the accused in those cases. A Special Case No. 4 of 1971 was filed against him and he was tried by the; Special Judge, Kolhapur. The learned Judge found him guilty and convicted him under Section 161 of the Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment which were ordered to run concurrently. In the result, he was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Besides, he was also se...
Tag this Judgment!The Nagpur Hotel Owners Association and ors. Vs. the Corporation of th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom190
Gadgil J.1. The only question that arises for our determination in this writ petition is as to whether the provisions of Section 237 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, and the bye-laws framed thereunder providing the necessity of having a licence for carrying on certain business such as hotel etc. stand repealed on account of the licensing provisions of such establishment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder.2. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of hotel owners at Nagpur, while petitioners 2 to 5 are its members, Respondent No. 1 is the Corporation of City of Nagpur, while the State of Maharashtra is the second respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioners 2 to 5 are carrying on their hotel business at Nagpur. On 27-7-1959; certain bye-laws framed by the City of Nagpur Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) under Section 415 (35) read with Section 237 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!Saheblal Chandbhai Vs. Chandanmal Kundanmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom295
ORDER1. This special civil application is preferred against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 24th June 1974 in Revision Application No. MRT. AH. XL 19/73 (TEN. Ap. 490/73). That was a decision given from the decision of the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, in Tenancy Appeal No. 41 of 1973. The appeal was from the decision of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Tenancy Case No. 32 (G) Shendi F/3/73. In the tenancy case the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had started a suo motu inquiry under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In the said inquiry the lands concerned were Survey No. 1 and Survey No. 406 of village Shendi, originally belonging to one Kundanmal Jawaharmal Bhandari The land had been kept fallow for two consecutive years. The Prant Officer, Nagar Division, therefore, assumed management of these two Lands on 20th July 1956. With effect from 14th Oct. 1956 the Lands were leased to one Sheikh Chandbhai for a period of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »