Mumbai Court June 1950 Judgments
Jivaji Annaji Vs. Hanmant Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom360; (1950)52BOMLR527; ILR1950Bom510
Chagla, C.J.[1] The question referred to this Full Bench is, will an adoption after the death of a collateral allow the adopted son to come in as an heir of the collateral ; and the few facts which are necessary to be stated for the determination of this question are these. One Krishnappa had five sons, Keshav, Anappa, Bhimrao, Apparao and Madhav. After the death of Bhimrao and Apparao, the brothers became divided and Keshav, Annappa and Madhav each got a one-third share of the joint family property. Annappa died in 1901 and Madhav died in 1903. Annappa left a widow Tungabai. Keshav left a son Vishnu who died in 1918, and as this was watan property, although Keshav had a daughter, the property went to the nearest male heir who was at the time Hanmant a collateral of Keshav. Annappa's widow adopted defendant 1 on 18th July 1922. Hanmant's sons are the plaintiff and defendant 2, and the plaintiff and defendant 2 claimed the property which Keshav had and which descended to Vishnu. The que...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Jal K. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom203; (1950)52BOMLR684; ILR1950Bom729
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, Mazagaon, acquitting the accused, who was being prosecuted for preparing, or causing to be prepared or selling or distributing ice-cream in contravention of a notification issued by the Government of Bombay on 24-1-1947. By this notification, the Government of Bombay directed that within the limits of the Greater Bombay, no person shall except under and in accordance with the conditions of the licence granted by the Director of Civil Supplies or the Milk Commissioner, Bombay,(a) use milk, cream, skimmed milk, dried milk, milk powder or any milk product (including curds and mawa) for the preparation of ice-cream (including Kulfimalai) or (b) distribute in a public place or sell at any place ice-cream (including Kulfimalai) for the preparation of which milk, cream, skimmed milk, dried milk, milk powder, or any milk product (including curds and mawa) has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Harikisan Balabakash Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ71
ORDERMudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge Akola affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 379, Penal Code and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 75.2. It is common ground that the applicant had sold three bags of jaggery powder to Premraj p. w. I. at the rate of Rs. l8-4.0permaund. According to the prosecution, after the bags were purchased by Premraj they were taken for weighment to a dharmkanta. After weighing they were taken to Premraj's shop in a cart. Thereafter, Premraj went to the shop of the applicant to make payment to the applicant. As the applicant was not there he paid a sum of Rs. 134-4-6 to the applicant's son, believing that that was the price to be paid. The applioant's son thereupon passed a receipt in his favour for this amount. According to the prosecution the applicant said that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 9 2-0 more on the basis of the weight noted on the slip issued to him after the weighment of the b...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Mulchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ813
ORDERMudholkar, J.1. The appcts. have been convicted of an offence Under Section 143, I. P.C. & sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 30 each.2. It is common ground that on 20-5-1948, which was a bazar day at mouza Nohta, there was a quarrel between one Lotania Chamar, a labourer engaged by one Bhaiyalal for collecting tendu leaves, & Bhaiyalal's servant Ramprasad. The quarrel culminated in Ramprasad assaulting Lotania. On account of this the chamara of the village became enraged & went in a body to the house of Bhaiyalal & actually committed a riot. According to the prosecution the appcts. were standing on the chabutra of a neem tree situate at a distance of 65 feet from Bhaiyalal's house & encouraged the rioters by their shouts to beat Bhaiyalal. The appcts. deny their presence on the chabutra at the relevant time & say that each of them has been falsely implicated in the case by Bhaiyalal on account of enmity.3. The prosecution evidence is discrepant on the questions as to what words were a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›