Mumbai Court February 1928 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.
The Sholapur Municipality Vs. Shivram Bhagwant Sarode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom282; (1928)30BOMLR715
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating facts of the case, proceeded:] The right to levy fees for temporary occupation of open sites vested in the Municipality is authorized under Section 70 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901, and the Municipality is empowered under Section 46(i) and 48(n) to make rules and by-laws in connection therewith. It is not urged that the rules and by-laws notified by public notice, Exhibit 81, are ultra vires. The Municipality, therefore, had a right to levy fees on the scale fixed by Exhibit 31.2. It is urged on behalf of the Municipality that the right to levy fees is included in the right to levy toll within the meaning of Section 81A of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901.3. Section 3, Clause (14), defines 'tax' as including any toll, rate, case, fee or other impost leviable under the Act. A toll is, therefore, quite distinct from a fee referred to in Section 3, Clause (14). The toll, however, referred to in Section 81A must re...
Naranji Premji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom244; 111Ind.Cas.661
Fawcett, J.1. The first point taken by Mr. Jinnah in this application for bail is that in Sub-section (1) of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the words 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with, death or transportation for life' only cover offences punishable with death or in the alternative with transportation for life, such as cases of murder and of waging war under Sections 302 and 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and that they do net include offences merely punishable with transportation for life. Although no authority has been referred to in the argument before us, there is, in fact, a ruling that does support Mr. Jinnah's contention, viz Mohammad Eusoof v. Emperor A.I.R. 1926 Rang. 51 27 Cr. L.J. 401. But that has been overruled by a Full Bench of the same Court in Emperor v. Nga San Htwa 28 Cr. L.J. 773. In my opinion this is a construction which cannot be adopted. If one refers to the definition of 'warrant c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›