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.
Chimanlal Bechardas Vs. Surat Borough Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom159; ILR1952Bom782
Chainani, J.[1] In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 52 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, on the charge of keeping his shop in Surat open on Sunday October 15, 1950, in contravention of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, has now made a reference recommending that the conviction of and the sentence passed upon, the accused should be set aside, as there was no valid sanction for his prosecution.[2] Section 60 of the Act provides that no prosecution under this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Government or the local authority, as the case may be. The expression 'local authority' has been defined in Section 2(15) of the Act as meaning a Municipality constituted under the City of Bombay Municipal Act, the Bombay District Municipal Act or the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act or a local board constituted under the Bombay Local Boards Act. As the ...
In Re: Parashuram Laljishet Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom276; (1952)54BOMLR160; ILR1952Bom914
ORDER[1] By this revision application the accused challenges his conviction under Sections 5 and 25(3), Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946. The facts are not in dispute. Between 6-1-1948, and 24-10-1948, the accused had several money-lending transactions in respect of which he charged interest at a rate exceeding the maximum prescribed by the Provincial Government under the Act. This Act came into force in the Mahad taluka on 17-11-1947, and the accused carried on his business in that taluka. The penal section under which the accused has been convicted is Section 34 which provides that whoever fails to comply with or acts in contravention of any provision of this Act, shall, if no specifics penalty has been provided for in this Act, is punishable in the manner laid down in that section.Turning to Section 5 it provides that no money-lender shall carry on the business of money-lending except in the area for which he has been granted a license and according to the terms and conditions of such...
W.G. Somalwar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ430
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Shri W.G. Somalwar. advocate, was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 150-0-0 under Section 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1947; and his application for revision of that order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. He has now come up in, revision to this Court.2. The applicant, who was the registered owner of motor vehicle No. C.P.H. 121, did not pay the Rs. 35-0-0 due on account of tax for the period 1st July 1949 to 31st December 1949 nor comply with the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act which runs as follows:The tax leviable under Sub-section (1) shall be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle used or kept for use-(i) for a whole quarter at one-fourth of the annual rate specified in the First Schedule, and for two or more whole quarters, 'pro rata', or(ii) for any period expiring on the last day of a quarter and not exceeding two months, at one-sixth or one-twelth of the rate specified in the First Sche...
Ramchandra Abaji Pawar Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom293; (1952)54BOMLR289; ILR1952Bom773
Chagla, C.J.[1] The petitioner is employed as an omnibus Driver by the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation. He is also the Vice-President of the State Road Transport Kamgar Sabha, and his application is that the State of Bombay should be compelled by a writ of mandamus to refer an existing industrial dispute to a tribunal for adjudication under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, XIV [14] of 1947. It would appear that a strike notice was given by some of the workers of the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and consequent upon the notice conciliation proceedings started under Section 12. A report was made by the Conciliation Officer under s. 12(4) and Government communicated to the parties concerned their reasons for not making a reference to a Board or a Tribunal under Sub-section (5). The allegation now in the petition is that there is as obligation upon the State to refer this dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication and it is also contended that Government were actuated by ...
Mulchand Gulabchand Vs. Mukund Shivram Bhide and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom296; (1952)54BOMLR285; ILR1952Bom766
Chagla, C.J. (1) A dispute between the petitioner who is a member of the Bombay Provincial Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Dhulia, and the' Society was referred to arbitration under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act. As the amount involved in the dispute was very large, viz. Rs. 53,495-0-6, the petitioner wanted to appear before the arbitral tribunal through his advocate and the tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner as it was governed by Rule 36 of the rules framed under the Act. That rule is framed under Section 71, and Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the Provincial Government may, for the whole or any part of the presidency and for any society or class of societies, make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, and Sub-section (2) provides: 'In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may.....,' and when we turn to Sub-section (u),'prescribe the mode of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators and the proce...
Dajisaheb Vs. Shankarrao Vithalrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom303; (1952)54BOMLR281; ILR1952Bom906
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and this Court in appeal set aside the decree of the trial Court and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. We sent down an issue to the trial Court to determine the value of the subject-matter of the suit, both at the time the suit was filed and also at the time of the passing of the decree in appeal, and the finding has been now returned to us. The finding is that the value of the subject-matter was between Rs. 11,000 and Rs. 13,000 both at the time of the filing of the suit and also at the time of the passing of the decree in appeal. The finding has not been challenged by Mr. Chandrachud, but his contention is that looking to the provisions of the Constitution the petitioner has no right of sp-peal to the Supreme Court.(2) Under Article 133(1) of the Constitution, 'An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order in a ...
Mulchand Khushiram Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom302; (1952)54BOMLR158; ILR1952Bom762
Chainani, J.(1) This in an application in revision by the accused against his conviction under Section 111 of the City of Bombay Police Act and the fine of Rs. 20 imposed upon him.(2) The accused has been found guilty of trespassing upon an open plot of land belonging to Sonavala & Co., Ltd., of which company the complainant is the manager. The accused challenges his conviction on the ground that Section 111 of the City of Bombay Police Act does not apply in cases of trespass on open plots of land. Section 111 of the City of Bombay Police Act is in the following terms:'Whoever without satisfactory excuse wilfully enters or remains in or upon any dwelling house or premises or any land or ground attached thereto, or on any ground, building, monument or structure belonging to Government or appropriated to public purposes, or on any boat or vessel, shall, whether he causes any actual damage or not, be punished with fine which may extend to twenty rupees.'Leaving out of consideration boats ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Finlay Mills, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1951
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR6
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, and it arises out of the opinion expressed by the High Court in respect of a question submitted to it by the Income-tax Tribunal, The material facts are these. The respondent is a textile mills company carrying on business of manufacturing and selling textile goods. For the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45, covering the accounting period ending with the calendar years 1941, 1942 and 1943, the respondent claimed the expenditure incurred by it in registering for the first time its trade marks which were not in use prior to February 25, 1937, as revenue expenditure and an allowable deduction out of its income for the said periods, under Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court in In re Century Mills Co., Ltd. (1946) 49 Bom. L.R. 52 the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee. At the desire of the appellant, the Tribunal submitted the fol...
The State Government Vs. Rangaswami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1191
1. The respondent Rangaswami. J.C.O.. Ammunition Depot., Amla, who was prosecuted under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act, was acquitted by the First Class Magistrate, Betul, in respect of the former offence but convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, has now appealed against his acquittal and filed as application for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to him under the Indian Arms Act.2. During the forenoon of the 9th July 1950, when the respondent Jemadar Menon (D.W. 1), Subedar Chaitnath (D.W. 2), Subedar Thadius and J.S.O. Verma were playing cards in J.S.O.'s quarter No. 11, the respondent went to relieve himself. On his return shortly afterwards, he reported that the hyena which had been roaming about in the vicinity on the previous day had come back; and he Indicated to his companions a moving object near a tree about 200 feet from them. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›