Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1106; (1959)IILLJ599Bom
Datar, J.(1) The appellant before us was originally a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee of Nagpur. A departmental enquiry was started against him and on the 12th of December 1949 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was guilty of the charges for which the enquiry had been started but recommended that as there were extenuating circumstances, only a warning be given to the appellant by way of punishment. the officer in charge of the Municipal Committee, however, took a different view on the question of punishment to be awarded. To the appellant and accordingly passed an order services. It was necessary under the rules that this order of the Officer in Charge had to be approved of by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue also approved of this order and the same was communicated to the appellant on the 27th of April 1951.(2) The appellant thereafter approached this Court by a special application under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom186; (1960)62BOMLR995
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 29th April, 1958 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff appellant in suit No. 2957 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a fisherman and at the material time was the owner of a country craft 'Pandavi'. He filed the above suit against the defendant company as owners of a cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as and by way of damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of a collision at a distance of about 10 miles from Worli Sea Shore between the defendant company's said cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' and the plaintiff's country craft 'Pandavi', alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant company, its servants and agents on the said boat resulting in the breaking in two parts and sinking of the plaintiffs country craft.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom208; (1961)63BOMLR76; ILR1961Bom344
Mudholkar, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shelat refusing to set aside an award made by an umpire in certain arbitration proceedings. The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal are as follows.2. The appellants entered into a contract with the respondents on the 30th of April, 1954 for the purchase of 825 bales of dhoties and sarees on terms and conditions contained therein. They paid for and took delivery of all the bales except 175 bales of dhoties. In regard to these bales there was a dispute between, the parties regarding quality. This dispute was referred to arbitration under the rules of the Mill Owner's Association to which the contract was subject. The arbitrators after hearing the parties made an award cancelling the contract with respect to 72 bales and directing the appellants to take delivery of the remaining 103 bales within 15 days of the receipt of the award by them. This award was made on the 5th October, 1955. The appellants, however...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom275; (1961)63BOMLR272
ORDER1. The Petitioner Mrs. Julieta Coutinho has filed this Petition in this Court's general and inherent jurisdiction for an order that the petitioner may be appointed guardian of the right, title and interest of the two respondents, who are minors, in the property at Eksar and that the Petitioner as such guardian may be authorised to sell the said immovable property on the terms and conditions of an agreement of sale dated 31st January 1960 and for certain other consequential reliefs. One Ciriaco Bernardo Coutinho died on 3rd May 1951 leaving the Petitioner who is his widow and four children, two of whom are now majors and the other two, being the two respondents in this petition, who are minors. The parties are Indian Christians and are governed by the Indian Succession Act. The said deceased has left no will. He left a small immovable property situated at Eksar which is within the Greater Bombay. That property consists of an open plot of land admeasuring 1964 square yards and is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR751
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 596, 601 and 613 of 1960.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 596 of 1960 is filed by Bashir Oil Mills through their proprietor Abbas Kasam Haji Dada who was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 45 of 1959 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warora, and convicted on May 31, 1960, of a breach of bye-law No. 1 read with bye law No. 7 framed by the Warora Municipal Committee in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 178(5), under Clause (cc) of Sub-section (1) of Section 179 read with Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section 133 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. The conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chanda, in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 1960 decided on October 8, 1960.3. Criminal Revision Application No. 601 of 1960 is filed by Ramakant Oil Mill, through its proprietor Bapurao Vithoba Padamawar against conviction of a similar offence in Crimi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom35; (1964)66BOMLR612
(1) This is a petition by way of appeal filed by consolidated Foods Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Mary land in the United States of America and having its principal place of business at San Francisco, California, against the order and judgment of Mr. C.D.V. Raman, the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, dismissing its oppositions to the three applications being application No. 178155, application No. 178158 and application No. 178159 filed by the respondents Messrs. Brandon and Co. Private Limited for registration of the mark 'Monarch' in respect of certain fruits and vegetables preparations.(2) On 23rd January 1957, the respondent company filed the three applications aforesaid for registration of the mark consisting of the word 'Monarch' (per se) in classes 29, 30 and 32 respectively. Application No. 178155 was in respect of 'preserved, dried, and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies and jams, preserves and pickles, ' all being goods included in Class 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom76; (1964)66BOMLR605; ILR1964Bom843
Abhyankar, J. (1) This order will also dispose of Special Civil Applications Nos. 35 and 43 of 1963 arising out of the same order. The latter two petitions are, however, not pressed and are dismissed with costs.(2) Special Civil Application No. 435 of 1962 is filed by one Azimsha. Azimsha was a tenant of field survey No. 35, having a total area of 28 acres and 29 gunthas. One Pandurang was a tenant of field survey No. 231/1. Azimsha was inducted on land as tenant in the year 1954-55, whereas Pandurang became a tenant in 1951-52. Both these fields along with some property was part of a joint family property, of which one Vasantrao and his mother Manoramabai (respondent No.4 in this petition) were members. There were other persons who had interest in this property. One Indirabai commenced a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family property (Civil suit NO. 10-A of 1944) in the Civil Court. To this suit Shripatrao (husband of respondent No.4 Manoramabai a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234
Tambe, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, wherein the vires of the Gold Control Rules, contained in part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, have been challenged. In the prayer clauses of the petition no doubt, validity of the entire rule were not challenged but only some of the rule were not mentioned. But the arguments advanced before us the were in respect of rules in general. If would not therefore be necessary to consider each rule separately.(2) The two petitioners before us are dealers in gold. They profess and parties Jain religion. The two petitioners carry onto business in the name and style of 'Messrs. Chandkumar Amichand & Co'. The principal business of the petitioner is in bullion. They buy and sell gold in course of their business. In their petition they say that the business carried on by the them is on a vast scale. Eleven persons are employed by them in the firm and the annual salary to the Rs. 20,000. The firm is also a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR792; [1965]57ITR428(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and is in respect of the five reference applications made to the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the accounting years being the respective previous calendar years. After consolidation of these five reference applications relating to the aforesaid assessment years, two questions of law have been referred to this court. The first question is common for all the five years and the second question is common only for three assessment years, viz. 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : The assessee-company, Messrs. Ciba Pharma Private Limited, Bombay hereinafter referred to as the 'Ciba Pharma', is a cent per cent. Indian subsidiary of Ciba Limited, Basle (Switzerland), hereinafter referred to as 'the Ciba Basle.' Ciba Basle deals in drugs, medicines, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biological pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR484
Naik, J.1. The appellant, who would hereafter be called the accused, was convicted under Section 471 read with Section 394(1)(a)(ii) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 201, in default, to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The accused has preferred an appeal from the order of conviction and sentence. It was noticed that the vires of Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was called in question, and, therefore, a notice was issued to the Advocate-General. The learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State as also on behalf of the Advocate-General. 'When the matter came up for hearing before me sitting singly, a request was made by Mr, Ganatra on behalf of the accused, and also by the learned Government Pleader that, in view of the importance of. the question involved, the case may be referred to a Division Bench. Accordingly, the criminal appeal has been referred to a Division Bench, and, that is how, the matter h...
Tag this Judgment!