Mumbai Court July 1937 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.
Emperor Vs. Baburao Appa Lingayat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom480; (1937)39BOMLR832
Barlee, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under the Bombay (District) Tobacco Act, 1933. He was a wholesale travelling agent of a wholesale-tobacco merchant. He visited the town of Pimpalner by motor car and sold 8000 bidis wholesale to two local dealers. Later it was found that there were 11000 bidis in his car. The learned Magistrate asked him whether he had a hawker's license for selling bidis. He replied in the negative. He denied that he had ever hawked bidis in the Nasik District. The learned Magistrate, however, convicted him and fined him Rs. 30 on the ground that he had admitted that he had sold 8000 bidis without a hawker's license, and had 11000 in his possession without a license for sale.2. We think that the learned Magistrate has erred, for a man may possess and sell bidis without a hawker's license. In fact a hawker's license is only one of several forms of licenses which are issued by Government for the sale of tobacco. We find from the Bombay Government Gazette of ...
Hilalsing Govinda Patil Vs. Udesing Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom125; (1937)39BOMLR1217; 173Ind.Cas.963
Thakor, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon, dated July 31, 1933, in Suit No. 493 of 1931. The suit was brought by one Hilalsing Govinda to obtain possession of the properties. in suit consisting of two survey numbers, and mesne profits at Rs. 250 per year from the date of the suit. There were three defendants, The first defendant was the person in possession of the whole or part of those properties, having been in possession of the same since the death of one Prabhabai, who was his junior adoptive mother. The second defendant was a purchaser under a sale-deed, dated November 19, 1929, passed to him by defendant No. 1, of four acres and one guntha, out of survey No. 105, for an amount of Rs. 7,000 for which he had obtained a decree against defendant No. 1. The third defendant was also a purchaser from defendant No. 1 under a sale-deed, dated December 18, 1929, under which he purchased three acres and thirty gunthas out of the same s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›