Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-29-1965
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ409Bom
..... which the bidi-rollers agreed to serve the employer subject to supervision and control. thus the criteria laid down in dhrangadhra chemical works, ltd., case : (1957)illj477sc (vide supra) of due control and supervision was followed for coming to the conclusion whether a person was employed or an independent contractor. 9. ..... of consideration by their lordships of the supreme court in a large number of cases. in dhrangadhra chemical works, ltd. v. state of saurashtra : (1957)illj477sc , the question that arose for consideration before their lordships was whether agarias, a class of professional labourers, who were working as labourers were workmen within ..... to furnish the particular qua them as required by the form. the scheme of the act shows that different provisions have been made in respect of different types of establishment. chapter iii deals with shops and commercial establishments. chapter iv deals with residential hotels, restaurants and eating houses and chap. v, deals with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-22-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Bom228; (1965)67BOMLR852; ILR1966Bom593; 1966MhLJ159
..... plaintiff's case. the plaintiff belongs to the subordinate ranks as defined in sub-section (16) of s. 2 of the act. chapter ii of the act relates to superintendence, control and organization of the police force. section 4 in that chapter provides that : 'the superintendence of the police force throughout the state of maharashtra vests in and is exercisable by the state ..... be unwarranted. in fact, the heading of chap. ii contains the phrase '... control ... of the police force.' similar is the position in the heading of chap. iii. chapter iii does not purport to deal with the matter of the power of superintendence that is dealt with under chap ii. there is nothing in s. 25 to indicate that ..... the date of the order of dismissal. the plaintiff's demand was rejected by the reply dated 15 may, 1954, ex. 39. this suit was filed on 9 january 1957. the contention of the state government is that to the above claim of the plaintiff the provisions in art. 102 in sch. i to the indian limitation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-01-1965
Reported in : [1967(14)FLR27]
..... really is whether that disputes comes within the category of disputes covered by s. 50(1) of the travancore-cochin co-operative societies act, 1951. the purpose of chap. xiii of the travancore-cochin co-operative societies act, 1951 - the chapter in which s. 60(1) occurs - is not to resolve all controversies touching the business of co-operative societies under the provisions ..... experts in industrial law or appoint those nominees themselves. the notifications issued at present under the central provinces and berar industrial disputes settlement act are to be found at p. 106 of the madhya pradesh labour manual, vol. i, 1957 edn., and those notifications show that generally all disputes arising in industries were referred to the labour commissioner for decision. the entire .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-26-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Bom64; (1965)67BOMLR612; ILR1966Bom214
..... old hindu law and covered widow estate into an absolute estate in the respect of the all 'property an possessed by her' in venkayamma v. veerayya. (s) air 1957 andh pra 280,. 'possession' was constructed in its widest sense to mean that the state of 'owning or having in one of the hand or power' similar view ..... the tenure holders are not tenancies. not being tenancy legislation, exception in s. 4(2) of the hindu succession act does not apply.(15) even apart from this, the contention cannot be accepted. the section occurs in chapter xii of the code which defines the classes of tenures, their liabilities and privileges. the tenure holders and have permanent ..... maintenance. it was therefore in held that she could alienate. it was therefore held coparcenary property for legal necessity was she which she got as his heir under the same act, harekirshnan das v. juesthi panda, (s ) : air1956ori73 and prem mahotan, v. bandhu mahto : air1958pat20 . it was also held by the this court is the dagadu v. .....
Tag this Judgment!