Mumbai Court July 1950 Judgments
Miss Sushila Madiman Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom252; (1950)52BOMLR794; ILR1951Bom9
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., and the order under which the detenu was detained by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, is dated 27-2.1960, and the order is made under the new Central Act. Grounds were furnished to the detenue on 16-8-1950, and the grounds are: ''That you along with your associates have been collecting and are likely to collect arms and ammunitions illegally for illegal purposes and illegal activities.' The Government pleader contends that on a similar ground in an earlier case we upheld the detention, holding that the ground was clear, precise and accurate. Mr.Chari, on the other hand, contends that since the coming into force of the new Constitution and the passing of the Central Act the position in law has materially altered, and in view of the alteration of the law the ground furnished is not such as to satisfy the provisions of the law. When we held that this ground was adequate we were governed by the Bombay Publ...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1950
Reported in: (1950)0LLJ1235Bom
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners, the Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd., against the first respondent, the Industrial Court consisting of P.S. Bakhle, member of the Industrial Court, the second respondent, the State of Bombay, and the respondents 3 and 4 on behalf of themselves and all other persons interested and deriving benefit under the order dated the 29th December 1949 made by the first respondent, for a writ of certiorari against the respondents calling for the records of the proceedings whereby the first respondent purported to make the said order dated the 29th December 1949 and to quash the same and for further and other reliefs.2. The matter arises this way. The Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd. are a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and they have got their Mills at Tilaknagar (Belapore Road), district Ahmednagar. In the course of their business they employ labour of various categories. The one is what may be called muster labour and the ot...
Tag this Judgment!The Fortune Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Vidyagauri J. Metha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom274; (1951)53BOMLR72; ILR1951Bom403
Vyas, J. 1. This appeal arises out of Insolvency Appln. No. 45 of 1949 of the Dist. Ct. of East Khandesh in which the Dist. J. of East Khandesh has ordered under Section 162, Companies Act (VII [7] of 1913) the winding up of the Fortune Commercial Bank, Ltd., Jalgaon, holding it proved on the evidence before him that the deceased managing director, of the applt. company, one Mr. K. G. Chaudhari, had grossly mismanaged the affairs of the company to secure benefit to himself & his friends, that loans without security to the extent of Rs. 90,000 had been advanced to the directors of the company, that suspicious entries to cover up the fraud had been made in the accounts of the company by the deceased managing director, that since 1-3-1949, the company was doing no business, that the substratum of the company had gone, that therefore the object of this banking company could not be carried out & that therefore it was just and equitable to wind up the company.2. The original opponent company...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Govind Masu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom332; (1951)53BOMLR108; ILR1951Bom467
Dixit J.1. These two appeals which raise a common question may be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The respondent in each case was tried for an offence under Section 85(2), Bombay Prohibition Act. He was convicted by the trial Mag. & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month & to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default, rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The conviction in each case was based upon a plea of the accused, viz. that he admitted the offence. From the order of conviction & sentence the resp. in each case appealed to the Ses. J., Poona & the learned Sess J. set aside the conviction & sentence in each case, directed the fine, if paid, to be refunded & ordered that each of the two respondents should be re-tried on the game facts. The reason for reaching thia conclusion was that the Ses. J. took the view that the learned trial Mag. should have followed the procedure applicable to a warrant case in each of the two cases.3. Now, the respondent was charged with having comm...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukhlal Dhanji Vora Vs. Jupiter Airways Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1950
Reported in: [1953]23CompCas124(Bom)
Coyajee, J.1. This suit is filed by 16 plaintiffs as sharesholders of the 1st defendant company on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all other shareholders of the 1st defendant company, except defendants Nos. 2 to 12. According to the plaint, the 1st defendant company was incorporated on July 13, 1946, for carrying on business of aerial transport, and by the company's memorandum dated July 12, 1946, the capital of the 1st defendant company was two crores of rupees dividend into twenty lacs ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. 2. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is stated that in June 15, 1946, the 1st defendant company issued forms of application for shares of the 1st defendant company to certain share- brokers named in the paragraph 'with the intention that the forms may be used by members of the public for applying for shares'. It is then stated that the same were issued without any prospectus and that the 1st defendant company had not at that time even filed a statement in lieu of...
Tag this Judgment!Nerbadaprasad Vs. Beniprasad and the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ807
ORDERHembon Ag, C.J.1. The Sub-Inspector, Sihora, reported that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace between Nerbadaprasad (party l) & Beniprasad (party 2) with regard to 7 fields in Marha, Sihora tahsil, Jabalpur district: & the Sub-Divisional Mag. Sihora, passed a preliminary order Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. on 3-5-1947.2. Party 1's case was that ho had bought the fields on 13 4-1946 by a regd. sale-deed for Rs. 1300 from Lakhan Singh & had been in absolute possession of them from that date. Beniprasad (party 2), who had an 0-8-0 share of the village, had, according to party 1, manoeuvred to buy the fields for a nominal consideration but without success. He had also sought to induce party 1 to transfer them, but here also his tactics were infructuous.3. Party 2 based his claim on the fact that his uncle Chowdhury Nerbadaprasad had taken possession of the fields in 1898 & bad remained in possession of them until 1920 when he died. Party a then inherited them as his sole...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.V. Ghate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom161; (1950)52BOMLR711; ILR1950Bom736
Chagla, C.J.1. These three petitions presented under Section 491, Criminal P. C., challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of Police on 26th February 1950 These three petitions are based on practically identical grounds and therefore it would be sufficient to deal with the facts in Petn. No. 250 of 1950.2. Ghate, who is the petitioner in this petition, was detained by an order passed by theCommissioner of Police in 1948. He was detained at the Yeravda prison. Act IV [4] of 1950, which is a Central Act, came into force on 26th February 1950 and on that day the Com-missioner of Police passed the following order :'Whereas the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, is satisfied with respect to the person known as S. V. Ghate of Greater Bombay that, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State of Bombay and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferr...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Ranchhodji Vs. the Bombay State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom242; (1950)52BOMLR786; ILR1950Bom772
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal by the accused, who has been convicted under Section 302Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life by the Additional Seasions Judge, Ahmedabad. The accused was tried by a jury, who unanimously found him guilty. Section 297, Criminal P. C., provides that in cases tried by jury, when the case for the defence and the prosecutor's reply (if any) are concluded, the Court shall proceed to charge the jury, summing up the evidence for the prosecution and the defence and laying down the law by which the jury are to be guided. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 423, Criminal P. C., the jury's verdict cannot be altered or reversed unless the appellate Court is of the opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him. In order to determine whether there were any misdirections by the Judge or whether the law was correctly laid down by him, it is necessa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›