Mumbai Court January 1948 Judgments
Sitaram Ranoo Vs. Demai D/O Jaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ29
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Sitaram was directed to pay Rs. 5. per mensem as maintenance to the non. applicant Demai by the First Class Magistrate, Nagpur, under Section 188, Criminal P. C, and his application for revision of that order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on 7th August 1946. In view of his failure to comply with the order, a warrant was issued against him under Sub-section (3) of that section and in the subsequent proceedings he appeared and claimed that she had no right to maintenance because of the fact that she was divorced on 4th August 1946 at a panchayat which was not attended by her.2. The First Class Magistrate, Nagpur held that the divorce was not recognised by Hindu law and he noted that it had taken place during the pendency of the revision from the order fixing Dernai's maintenance at Ea. 6 per mensem. His view was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who dismissed Sitaram's application; and Sitaram has now come up in revision to this Court.3....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Isak Solomon Macmull
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR190
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal by accused No. 1 against an order of the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, convicting him under Sections 7 and 8 of Act XXIV of 1946 read with Clauses 5 and 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 50,000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case was that a11 the three accused on July 18, 1947, supplied four gallons of petrol for Rs. 25 to a bogus customer without coupons as required by law; that the petrol was supplied by accused No. 3; accused No. 2 was the cashier and accused No. 1 was the owner and the holder of the licence of the petrol pump from which the petrol was supplied. The learned Presidency Magistrate convicted accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 and acquitted and discharged accused No. 2. From that order of conviction and sentence only accused No. 1 has preferred this appeal.3. Now, it was not the case of the prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR399
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated September 5, 1946, setting aside the acquittal of the appellant of an offence under Clause 18 (2) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, by the judgment and order of the City Magistrate of Sholapur and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500.2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellant were stated in a written report made by Mr. Mulik, Sub-Inspector of Police, Food Control, Sholapur, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholapur, on January 24, 1945. The report which is exhibit No. 1 'L' was in the following terms:-I, Raghunath Santaji Mulik, Sub-Inspector of Police, Food Control, Sholapur, give in writing as follows:Having got information that there were cloth without 'Textile' mark and grain hoarded in the bungalow situate at Motibag belonging to the Old Mill at Sholapu...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeodas Mahavirprasad Vs. G.P. Sonavalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR233
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Tendolkar. It seems that before November 1943 one Mrs. Mooseick was a monthly tenant of the defendant and she was carrying on the business of a boarding house in the premises. On November 30,1943, the defendant's attorneys Messrs. Ghulamali Noorani & Co. gave a notice to Mrs. Mooseick terminating her tenancy on December 31, 1943. After terminating the tenancy Messrs. Ghulamali Noorani & Co. went on to add in their letter that she had not been paying her rent regularly and punctually and she had not performed various other conditions of the tenancy. They also alleged that she had caused nuisance and annoyance in various ways to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers and they also contended that she had sublet portions of the premises without the landlord's permission. On December 1, Mrs. Mooseick replied to this letter through her attorneys. She refuted the various allegations made in the letter of November 30, 1943, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›