Mumbai Court April 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.
The State Vs. Hasan Mohammad S/O Jumman Miyan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1951
Reported in: 1951CriLJ1535
Hemeon, J.1. On the 10th December 1950, Kodiaya. Ramiya, Suriya and Raghiya were, according to the police, found gambling in the Arambha bazar, Waraaeoni Tahsil, Balaghat district, and the constable on duty who had seized the gambling articles was taking them with those persons to the police-station. On the way there, he was set upon by Kondiaya and others who removed the flash and other articles and took to flight. Offences under Sections 332, 342 and 392, Penal Code were registered and investigation began. Kondiaya, Ramiya, Suriya and Raghiya were in due course arrested and released on bail on 15th December 1950 by the First Class Magistrate, Waraseoni.2. On 19th and 22nd December 1950, remands were asked because a 5th person said to have teen involved in the incident was absconding. Remand was accordingly granted until 27th December 1950, but 4 days previously Mohammad Hasan appeared through his counsel before the Magistrate and filed an application for bail. The Magistrate did not ...
A.R. SarIn Vs. B.C. Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom423; (1951)53BOMLR674; ILR1952Bom864
Chagla, C.J.1. By this petition the petitioner, who is the Controller of Stores, B. B. & C. I. Rly., seeks for a writ of certiorari against the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Respondent No. 2 was an employee of the B. B. & G. I. Rly. He was employed on May 19, 1944. On January 6, 1960, the District Controller of Stores made an order suspending him from service with effect from January 7, 1950, and on February 4, 1950, the District Controller of Stores passed an order removing respondent No. 2 from service. On April 10, 1950, respondent No. 2 filed an application in the Court of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for a direction to the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act to pay a sum of Rs. 253-10-0 as delayed wages for the period February 4, 1950, to March 81, 1950. Subsequent to that other applications were filed for the payment of delayed wages by respondent No. 2 for periods subsequent to March 31, 1950. An objection was taken on behalf of the petitioner that...
Rajaram Dadu and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1
Hidayatullah, J.1. The three applicants Rajaram, Bikramdas, and Rma were convicted under Sections 448 and 504, Penal Code by the Nyaya Panchayat Court, Kamtha, and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 each. They filed a revision application before the civil Judge (Class I), Bhandara, who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to Rs. 20 each.2. The present application was filed on 16.6.1949 and purported to be under Section. 115, Civil P.C. Clause 11, Letters Patent of this Court, and Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915, read with Section 228, Government of India Act, 1985. The matter came up before me sitting singly, and on 17.11.1850 I heard arguments partly and the case was adjourned to 24.11.1950. Meanwhile, the applicants filed on 20.11.1950 application No. 333 of 1950 for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate direction, order, or writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.3. On the case coming up before me again on 1.12.1960 I ordered the papers to be...
State of Bombay Vs. Mohanlal Kapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom404; (1951)53BOMLR669; ILR1952Bom597
Chagla, C.J.1. An order of requisition dated December 12, 1950, was challenged by the petitioner, and the learned Judge below Mr. Justice Shah held that the order was bad on the ground that the order did not recite that the requisition was for the purpose of the State or for other public purpose. The order in question is to the following effect :'WHEREAS, on inquiry it ii found that the premisesspecified below had become vacant on or after the monthof April 1950. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, the Government of Bombay is pleased to requisition the said premises.' Then follows a description of the premises. 2. Now, Mr. Seervai's first contention is that the law does not require that the order should state the purpose for which the premises are requisitioned. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to look at the language of Section 6 (4) as amended. That section pr...
Sheoshankar Vs. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: 1951CriLJ1140
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an application purporting to be under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:(i) A writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce against the petitioner the Central Provinces & Berar Prohibition Act VII (7) of 1938 or all such sections of the same as may be found inconsistent with the Constitution:(ii) a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw & cancel all such notifications rules & orders made by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the provisions of the said Act as may be found inconsistent with the Constitution:(iii) all the costs of the petition, &(iv) Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem proper to grant.2. The petitioner states that he is a permanent resident of Nagpur and is earning Rs. 100 per month & has been accustomed for a number of years to take alcoholic drinks, generally country liquor, at an average of 4 ounces per day.3. Since the enforcement of the Central ...
P.R. Nayak Vs. Bejen Dadiba Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom406; (1951)53BOMLR654
Chagla, C.J.1.. One Ebrahim Yusuf Gardee let out the Edward Theatre on 5th May 1948, to a partnership consisting of the respondent and one Munehershaw B. Billimoria. The term of the lease was five years and that term expired on 30th September 1948. On 7th September 1949, the Edward Theatre was declared to be evacuee property by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. On 10th September 1949 the Custodian called upon the respondent, who had by then become the sole lessee of the lease (the right, title and interest of his partner having been assigned to him) to pay the rent to him as the Custodian of the property, On 3lst May 1950, the Custodian served a notice upon the respondent terminating his tenancy at the end of one month, viz. 30th June 1950. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition in this Court for an order under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, requiring the Custodian to forbear from demanding surrender of possession of the Edward Theatre. This petition came on before Shah J. an...
P.R. Nayak Vs. Ebrahim Aboobaker and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom418; (1951)53BOMLR663; ILR1952Bom606
Chagla, C.J.1. Although various points were urged before Mr. Justice Shah when this petition, out of which this appeal arises, was argued before him, only one narrow point survives so far as this appeal is concerned and which has been argued by Mr. Seervai on behalf of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The point briefly put is this:2. One Aboobaker died on 14th May 1950, and four-seventh share in a property known as the Imperial Cinema vested in his two sons, Husein and Alimahomed as his heirs. Now both these sons have been declared evacuees and their property has been vested in the Custodian. The question which we have to consider is whether it is competent to the Custodian under the Act or under the rules framed thereunder to take possession not only of the four-seventh share vested in him but also the three-seventh share which is not evacuee property ; or, in other words, whether it is open to the Custodian to take possession of the building known as the Imperial Cinema although wh...
Yusufally GulamhusseIn and anr. Vs. Yusufally Cassamally and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom92; (1952)54BOMLR702
(1) This is a suit filed by two brothers, Yusufally and Yacoobally, sons of Gulamhussein Chhatriwalla, against their cousin Yusufally Cassamally and against the Advocate General of Bombay seeking to obtain reliefs for removal of defendant No. 1 Yusufally Cassamally from his office as a trustee, for accounts, for appointment of a new trustee, for transfering the property in the possession of defendant No. 1 to the new trustee so appointed, and for an order for payment to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 5,000, being the amount mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint, and other amounts which may be found due to them under the trust deed dated August 19, 1929. The suit was filed with the sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92, Civil P. C.(2) The averments made in the plaint are these. On August 19, 1929, one Valbai widow of Ladha Lakhamsey created a trust of a property known as Chhatriwalla Building situate at Wadia Street, Tardeo, subject to the powers and provisions contained in th...
Abdul Majid Haji Mahomed Vs. P.R. Nayak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom440; (1951)53BOMLR621; ILR1952Bom378
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed to challenge certain orders passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The facts briefly stated leading up to the petition are that the second petitioner, which is a limited company, was incorporated on 14th July 1933, as a private limited company with a share capital divided into 44,149 shares. The number of share-holders was 35 and the first petitioner is a share holder of this limited company with a holding of 2,715 shares. On 7-10-1949 two notifications were issued by the Deputy Custodian of Bombay, one under Section 4 (2) of Bombay Act XXIV [24] of 1949 vesting the property of the second petitioner company in the Custodian, and the second notification under Section 6(1) of 6he same Act dealing with the possession and control of that property. On 14th October 1949, two notifications were issued by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property of Thana, one again under Section 4 (2) and the other under Section 6 (1) also relatin...
The State Vs. Laxminarayan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ109
ORDERHemeon, J.1. On 10.10.1949, the accused was absent and the First Class Magistrate, Bilaspur, ordered him to pay at the nest hearing the diet-money and travelling allowance of all the complainant's witnesses who were present on that date. The accused made a representation against that order but it was rejected, and the Extra-Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has now reported the case under Section 438, Criminal P.C., with a recommendation that the order be set aside as contrary to law.2. In the course of arguments my attention was drawn to Sorabji v. Erachshaw A.I.R. 1932 Bom. 470, in which it was held that an order requiring an accused to pay the costs of an adjournment is one which a Magistrate in his discretion may make under Section 344, Criminal P.C. In Mohanlal v. Mohini Mohan : AIR1948Cal194 , however, the view taken was that when an accused is absent on the date of hearing, the Court is bound to give an adjournment and has no power to award adjournment costs against him,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »