Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom283; (1958)60BOMLR241; ILR1958Bom514; (1959)ILLJ117Bom
G.B. Badkas, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to ignore the order of the President dismissing the petitioner from service and to take him back in service. 2. The petitioner was employed in the Office of the Accountant-General of Madhya Pradesh at Nagpur as Upper Division Clerk. The appointing authority of the petitioner was the Accountant-General, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner belonged to the civil service of the Union of India, class III, and was holding a permanent civil post under the Union of India. Consequent on the coming into force of the States Reorganization Act (No. XXXVII of 1957), the petitioner's services were allotted to the Account ant-General of Bombay, the respondent No. 1, and since 1-11-1956 the petitioner had been working under the said authority, who thereupon became the authority equal in rank with the petitioner's appointing authority. The respondent No. 2 is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom300; (1958)60BOMLR596; ILR1958Bom645
S.P. Kotwal, J. 1. This petition raises important questions as to the applicability and scope of Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (Act II of 1955), and as to its constitutional validity.2. The facts upon which the petition is based are simple. The first petitioner is an association known as the ''Berar Provincial Patels and Patwaris Association, of which the petitioner Nagorao son of Haribhau Gaopande is the authorised representative. Nagorao also was at the material time the malik watan-dar patwari of several villages in Akola Taluq and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were the malik watan-dar patels of several villages in Akola faluq, district Akola and in Malkapur taluq of Buldhana district respectively. The petitioners were appointed to their respective offices under the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900. To the provisions of this law and the circumstances in which it came to be passed we shall presently advert.3. After the abolition of malguzaris and other p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom109; (1959)61BOMLR213; ILR1959Bom613
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather important question as to the jurisdiction of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal arises in this Full Bench, and the few facts, which have to be stated in order to understand what the contention is, are that certain Patels were appointed under the Berar Land Revenue Code. The relevant Act is the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law of 1900, and the Patels that used to be appointed under this Act were either Patels who had certain Watan rights or Patels who were appointed ad hoc. This was continued under the subsequent Madhya Pradesh Laws till we come to the Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code (II of 1955) and that law abolished the system of the appointment of these Patels. When we turn to the Code, Section 214 provides:'At the end of one year from the date appointed for the coming into force of this Code or on any earlier date which the State Government may, by notification, specify, the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, shall stand repealed and any right or claim to con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ572Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of S. 59 of the States Reorganization Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Surjuprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, and this petition was presented before the Nagpur High Court and the petition was admitted by that High Court. Then came the States Reorganization Act and this petition was transferred to the Bombay High Court under Sub-section (2) of S. 59. The petition now comes before the Bombay High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service. 2. Now, the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom122; (1958)60BOMLR1468; ILR1959Bom641
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of Section 59 of the States Reorganisation Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Suruprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, and this petition was presented before the Nagpur High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service.2. Now, the scheme of Section 59 is this that the Legislature had to deal with the situation that arose by reason of the fact that the old Nagpur High Court ceased to function, that it became the High Court of the new State of Madhya Prad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR20
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. When Mr. Justice M.C. Shah and Mr. Justice Baxi of the Saurashtra High Court heard First Appeal No. 12 of 1952, certain important questions of law arose before them and they thought it necessary to refer those questions to a Full Bench. This matter has now come before us.2. In order to understand the question that we have to decide, a few facts must be stated. The plaintiff is the second son of the ex-Ruler of Sayla and on July 21, 1945, the Thakore Saheb of Sayla, the then Ruler, agreed to give to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 30,000 in lieu of residence and this caine to be given under the following circumstances. The Thakore Saheb was the karta of an impartible estate and both under the custom and the rule of Hindu law the impartible estate would go to his eldest son, but the younger sons have a right of maintenance and residence. Certain provision was made with regard to the maintenance of the plaintiff, but with regard to the residence, that claim was commuted for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR890; (1959)IILLJ286Bom
Mudholkar, J. 1. This order will also govern Special Civil Application No. 214 of 1958. In these petitions the petitioners challenge the notification issued by the Government of Bombay in Labour and Social Welfare Department, dated 11 June, 1958, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. That notification runs thus : 'No. MWA. 1557-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of S. 5 read with Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of that section of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), and after consulting the Advisory Board and in supesession of the former Government of Madhya Pradesh Labour Department notification No. 564-451-XXIII, dated 23 February, 1956, the Government of Bombay hereby revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of the employment in any tobacco (including bidi-making) manufactory in the Vidharbha region of the State of Bombay as mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed and directed that this notification shall come into force with effect from 1 July 1958. Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom421; (1959)61BOMLR380; ILR1959Bom1368
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of construction of Section 15C of the Income-tax Act arises for our determination on this reference, which come before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, under Section 66(1). The facts may be briefly stated. A partnership firm consisting of three partners started doing business of manufacturing shoes from 1-7-1948 in the firm name of 'Coral and Co.' There was another concern -- The Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. which was a limited liability company registered on 21-7-1949. Owing ti devaluation of currency, this latter company had difficulties in carrying on its business of foam rubber. It came to the notice of this company, which is the assessee company before us, that the firm of Coral and Co. wanted to sell its business. The assessee company took over all the assets of the business of Coral and Co. including its goodwill for the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The payment was not made in cash but was by allott...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1959]35ITR662(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of construction of section 15C of the Income-tax Act arises for our determination on this reference, which comes before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, under section 66 (1). The facts may be briefly stated. A partnership firm consisting of three partners started doing business of manufacturing shoes from 1st July, 1948, in the firm name of 'Coral & Co.' There was another concern - The Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. which was a limited liability company registered on 21st July, 1949. Owing to devaluation of currency, this latter company had difficulties in carrying on its business of them rubber. It came to the notice of this company, which is the assessee company before us, that the firm of Coral & Co. wanted to sell its business. The assessee company took over all the assets of the business of Coral & Co. including its goodwill for the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. The payment was not made in cash but was by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ308Bom
ORDER1. The questions which have been referred to this Full Bench are : (1) Whether the State industrial court which entertained the present reference applications was validly constituted and had jurisdiction to entertain them (a) Whether the present State industrial court is properly constituted and in entitled to deal with these references (2) Whether no jurisdiction is conferred upon the State industrial court by enacting S. 38A of the Act to entertain these references and proceed with them in the absence of expressly conferring jurisdiction by rules made or in any other manner (3) Whether proceedings by way of conciliation are sine que non to a reference under S. 38A of the Act (a) Whether in the matter of references before this Court mentioned above, there were valid and proper conciliation proceedings both as to the identity of the parties and as to the identity of the subject-matter in dispute (b) If the reply to either or both is negative, what is the effect upon the present re...
Tag this Judgment!