Mumbai Court October 1951 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.
Municipal Committee Vs. Harsukh Ramlal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1590
ORDERMudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision against the acquittal of non-applicant 1.2. Non-applicant 1 was prosecuted at the instance of the applicant, the Municipal Committee, Umarkhed, for the contravention of Section 15(1)(a), C.P. & Berar Town Planning Act, (Act 67 of 1948). He was convicted under Section 15(1)(c) and sentenced to pay a fine of Its. 100/- and in addition Rs. 52-12-6 as expenses incurred by the Municipal Committee.3. Non-applicant 1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yeotmal, who acquitted him and also set aside the order for payment of Rs. 52-12-0 to the Municipal Committee.4. The first point urged in this application is that the case having been started on the complaint of the applicant, the applicant was entitled to be heard during the appeal and that the order setting aside conviction and sentence passed on non-applicant and also setting aside the order requiring non-applicant to pay Rs. 52-12-0 to the Municipal Committee on ...
Harnamsingh Indarsingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ870
ORDER1. The applicant was a Circle-Inspector of Police but was dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police on the 29th April ]949. The applicant preferred an appeal from the order of the Inspector-General of Police before the Provincial Government which was dismissed on the 24th September 1949. He preferred a memorial to the Government on the 6th November 1949, which was likewise rejected on the 27th February 1950. Finally he made an application to the Government for the grant of compassionate allowance. This. application was rejected on the 6th December 1950. The applicant has, therefore, come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It is urged by way of preliminary objection by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the dismissal of the applicant having taken place before the Constitution and the order relating to his dismissal having attained finality before the commencement of the Constitution, the powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the C...
M. Gopalkrishna Naidu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ845
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The relevant facts are briefly these. The applicant was appointed on the 1st January 1924 as an Overseer in the Upper Subordinate Engineering service of the Central Provinces and Berar, P.W.D. The Anti-Corruption Department received a complaint from one Salve, who had taken a contract for the construction of some work in the Takli Police Lines, that the applicant, who supervised the work, was in the habit of receiving bribes from contractors. He further complained that he was paying the applicant Rs. 150 p.m. and that during the particular month the applicant was demanding Rs. 300 out of which he had paid Rs. 100.The police then, with the help of Salve laid a trap and it is said that the applicant was caught In the act of receiving the balance of Rs. 200 on the night of the 12th December 1947. On the 17th December 1947, the Executive Engineer passed an order to the effect that the applicant be relieved from his cha...
Jagjiwanrao Dayabhai and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ646
ORDER1. This is an application to quash the proceedings under Section 401 of the Indian Penal Code, pending against the applicants and others in the Special Court presided over by Shri G.R. Kale, Special Judge, Akola. His order, dated the 27th February 1951, is questioned in this revision.2. The material facts are these. The applicants Jagjiwanram, Pyarelal, Duniasingh alias, Mahabir Singh and 37 others are prosecuted on the allegation that they belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing thefts and house-breaking and they had been operating in the District of Akola. On the 151to January 1951, Tulshiram, Champa, Shaligram and Atmaram, accused Nos. 38 to 41, were tendered pardons by Shri W.M. Deshmukh, judge and Magistrate, Washim, under Section 337(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereafter, referred to as the Code. A charge-sheet was filed against them on the 17th January 1951, in his Court. The State Government, by notification No. 180-121-X...
In Re: S.G. Mandre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1951
Reported in: [1952]22CompCas130(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The respondent is an incorporated and registered accountant practising in Bombay, and we have before us a report made by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India submitting its finding that the respondent has been guilty of misconduct which renders him unfit to be a member of the Institute, and the report has come before us under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act (XXXVIII of 1949).2. Mr. Khandalawala who appears for the respondent has, in the first instance, raised certain question of law, and in order to dispose of them it is necessary to look at the scheme of the Act which has been recently passed by the Legislature. The object of the Act is the establishment of an Institute of Chartered Accountants and that Institute is constituted a body corporate with perpetual succession, and among others all persons who were registered accountant are entitled to have their names entered in the register of the Council of the Institute and also its fu...
Dhulia-amalner Motor Transport Ltd. Vs. Raychand Rupsi Dharamsi and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1951
Reported in: [1952]22CompCas306(Bom)
Vyas, J.1. These appeals arise out of an appellate decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) with appellate powers at Dhulia by which he disposed of two appeal, namely, Appeals Nos. 144 and 145 of 1943, which had arisen out of suits Nos. 82 and 63 respectively of 1942. In Appeal No, 144 of 1943 the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted a declaration that the partnership firm known by the name of the Dhulia-Amalner Motor Owners' Union had not been dissolved but had merely changed its name to the Dhulia-Amalner Motor Transport, Limited. He allowed an option to the plaintiff and his colleagues, the minority members of the partnership fir, of paying a share capital of Rs. 800 each with interest at 6 per cent. from February 21, 1942, onward and 'participating in the income and profits obtained by the Dhulia-Amalner Motor Transport, Limited, up to the date of the decree.' On the plaintiff failing to make the option, th...
Surat Borough Municipality Vs. Nagindas Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom29; (1952)54BOMLR800; ILR1953Bom4
Dixit, J.[1] This reference raises a question of procedure of some importance. The facts leading up to the reference -are shortly those.[2] One Nagindas Maganlal was prosecuted before the Stipendiary Thirst Class Magistrate. Surat, for an offence under Section 4 (l) (b), Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 193-5. Upon the evidence adduced, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 4 (l) (b) of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. From that order of conviction and sentence, the accused made an application in revision before the Sessions Court, Surat, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1ms made this reference, asking that the conviction and the sentence recorded against the accused should be set aside and that the accused should he re-tried for the same offence. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered that there was an illegality in the proceedings, ...
Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji Vs. Onkarmal Ishar Dass and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom365; (1952)54BOMLR330
Chagla, C.J.(1) This appeal raises a very interesting and important question as to the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Justice Shah took the view that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the plaintiff's suit, and on that ground he dismissed it. It is from that order of dismissal that the plaintiff has come in appeal before us.(2) A preliminary observation may be not out of place as to the manner in which issues as to jurisdiction should be tried. Mr. M. V. Desai has made a grievance that the learned Judge took the view that an issue with regard to jurisdiction is always an issue of law and must be tried as a preliminary issue. I do not think that this grievance is fully justified. As I read the judgment, the learned Judge has tried this issue as an issue of law because, for the purpose of his decision, he has assumed that all the facts averred by the plaintiff in his plaint are proved, and, therefore, this issue has been tried on a demurrer.Now, it is open to a Court to take the view...
The Borough Municipality of Amalner Vs. the Pratap Spinning, Weaving a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1951
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR451
Gajendragadkar, J. [1] This appeal arises from a dispute between the Pratap Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Company, Limited, Amalner and the Borough Municipality of Amalner. The Pratap Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Company, Limited, had sued the Municipality in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Dhulia, for a declaration that the claim made by it on 3-11-1948, by its bill No. 3 and Rule 3 (9) of its General Property Tax Rules on which the said bill was based were ultra vires, illegal and void and for an injunction restraining the Municipality from making any claim or demand on the strength of the said rule. The company had also claimed a refund of Rs. 18,931-11-0 which had been paid by the company under protest on 20-11-1948, in pur-suancea of the aforesaid bill. To the suit filed by the company the Borough Municipality of Amalner was impleaded as defendant 1 and the Province of Bombay defendant 2. [2] The plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Compani...
Ramchandra Shrinivas and ors. Vs. Ramkrishna Krishnarao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom463; (1952)54BOMLR636
Gajendragadkar, J.[1] The principal question which arises for our determination in this appeal at this stage relates to the quantum of the plaintiff's share in the properties in suit. This question has been raised in circumstances and on facts which make it necessary to examine some provisions of the Hindu law of adoption, and it is the consideration of these provisions which has made-this question both interesting and important. The-facts which give rise to the dispute are not many and most of them are true to the usual pattern of adoption cases.[2] One Shrinivas had two sons, Ramchandra and Krishnaji. Krishnaji died in 1930. After his death Shrinivas and Ramchandra continued to live as members of an undivided Hindu family. In about December 1932 Krishnaji's widow Sundrabai began to think of making an adoption to her deceased husband and it would appear that both Shrinivas And Ramchandra came to know about this intention of Sundrabai. Thereupon Shrinivas and Ramchandra effected a part...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »