Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1954)ILLJ480Bom
1. This is an appeal by the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, against the acquittal of respondent Maganbhai.2. The Patel Oil Mills, Akola, is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m), Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). The respondent, Maganbhai was the occupier of this factory as denned in Section 2(m). W.J. Thete worked as the manager at the material time. He died during the pendency of the trial.3. Sri A.P. Varkhedkar, Inspector of Factories, Madhya Pradesh, inspected the Patel Oil Mills on 13 September 1950. He noticed certain irregularities which he recorded in his inspection report. A complaint against respondent and Thete was filed on 30 October 1950 in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Akola.4. The case of the prosecution was that the transmission machinery was not securely fenced. There was breach of Section 21, punishable under Section 92 of the Act. Workers were allowed to work without proper entries of their names and other particulars being made in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ750
ORDERHemeon, J.1. Anwarbi's application under Section 488, Criminal P.C. for maintenance for herself and her daughter Mahmoodabi, 7 years, against Rahmatsab was dismissed by the First Class Magistrate, Burhanpur, on the grounds that she failed to prove that he had expelled her from his house, that she refused to return to him although he was willing to keep her and that she was not prepared to go back to him. Anwarbi then went up in revision; and the Additional Sess. Judge, Nimar, has reported the case under Section 433, Criminal P.C. with a recommendation that the dismissal of the claim for maintenance was, so far as it relates to the daughter, wrong. Anwarbi has filed an application for revision against the order refusing maintenance to her.2. Anwarbi's suit for dissolution of marriage viz., civil suit No. 43-A of 1946, was dismissed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Burhanpur; and her appeal was also unsuccessful. She then filed a second appeal in this Court. The application under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ72
ORDER1. On the report, dated 14-3-1951, of Gourishankar Shandilya, a member of the Municipal Committee, Deori, the police prosecuted Beti Bal 'alias' Bitola under Sections 294 and 506(1), Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri R. R. Bhiros, Magistrate Second Class, Rehli. The clialan was filed on 26-3-1951. She pleaded guilty. She was convicted and sentenced to fines of Rs. 20/- and Rs. 30/- under Sections 294 and 506(1) respectively on 30-7-1951.2. During the pendency of the case, the following news-item appeared in 'Prahari' in its issue, dated 22-7-1951 of which Rameshwar Prasad Guru (N. A. No. 2) is the Editor and Publisher, while Bhawani Prasad Tiwari (N. A. No. 1) is the printer:'Black deeds of Janapada member'.It is learnt from reliable source that (a member of?) the congress Janapada of Deori who was so to say accused of having caught the 'anchal' of a woman and a report about which was made at the local police station, being a partisan of the Station-House Officer, the case wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ89
1. This is an appeal by the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, against the acquittal of respondent Maganbhai.2. The Patel Oil Mills, Akola, is a factory within the meaning of Section 2 (m), Factories Act, 1948, (hereinafter called the Act). The respondent Maganbhai was the occupier of this factory as defined in Section 2 (m). W.J. There worked as the Manager at the material time. He died during the pendency of the trial.3. Shri A. P. Varkhedkar, Inspector of Factories, Madhya Pradesh, inspected the Patel Oil Mills on 13-9-50. He noticed certain irregularities which he recorded in his inspection report. A complaint against respondent and There was filed on 30-10-1950 in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Akola.4. The case of the prosecution was that the transmission machinery was not securely fenced. There was breach of Section 21, punishable under Section 92 of the Act. Workers were allowed to work without proper entries of their names and other particulars being made in the register...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ979
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants Krishnarao, Narayanrao and Laxman were convicted and each sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- by the Section 30 Magistrate, Washim, under Sections 467, and 471, Section 467, and Section 467 read with Section 109, Penal Code respectively; and in appeal the Sessions Judge, Akola, affirmed the convictions and maintained Krishnarao's sentence, but reduced the sentence of Narayan to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and that of Laxman to six months' rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.2. There was a dispute between Krishnarao, who is Narayanrao's brother, and Bhagwan (P.W. 1) concerning a house in Wai, Washim 'taluq'; and on 10.10.1946 Krishnarao filed Civil Suit No. 468-A of 1946 in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Washim, for possession of it and for Rs. 108/- on account of rent for the period 30.9.1943 to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1953]23ITR131(Bom)
This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, by which the following question of law has been referred to this Court :-'Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar (now Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal) was competent under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act to revise the order made by the Income-tax tax Officer on 22nd July, 1947 ?'2. The assessee Niranjanlal Rambhallabh claimed registration of their firm for the assessment year 1944-45 and by the order dated the 22nd July, 1947, the Income-tax Officer granted this application and registered the firm for the assessment year J1944-45. By the order dated the 19th July, 1949, the Commissioner, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 33B of the Act, set aside the order on the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence for the relevant assessment year. The Commissioner further observed that 'inasmuch as the assessment case was pending before the Income-tax Officer, having been remanded by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom28; (1952)54BOMLR828; ILR1953Bom188
ORDER[1] The suit out of which this revision application arises was filed in the Court of the Nyayadish at Ghodasar and the plaint was signed by the plaintiff's son Vadilal Dayabhai and he was described as a kulmukhtyar. Alter merger the suit was transferred to the Civil Judge at Kaira. The plaintiff then applied for an amendment of the plaint by striking off the signature of his son and by being permitted to sign the plaint. The plaintiff realised that his son had no proper authority to sign the plaint and that was the reason for this application for amendment. The learned Judge dismissed the application, and it is from that order that this revision application is preferred.[2] Now, there are two decisions of this Court to which my attention has been drawn bearing on the Question as to whether failure to sign the plaint properly is such a material defect that the Court would be entitled to say that in the absence of a plaint being properly signed there is no suit before the Court at a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1953)ILLJ484Bom
1. This is an appeal for revision under Section 25 Small Cause Courts Act by Bhagwat Rai who had filed Civil Suit No. 83 of 1950 in the Court of Sri S.L. Sarma, First Civil Judge, (Class II), Bilaspur, empowered under Section 18 C.P. Courts Act.2. Bhagwat Rai worked as a fitter-coolie under the Inspector of Works, Bengal-Nagpur Railway, Bilaspur, His case is that he was not paid a part of his wages for the months of November 1948 and March 1949 amounting to Rs. 76-4-0 and that as he was illegally suspended on 22 March 1949 by defendant 2, L.C. Mehta, Inspector of Works, and reinstated on 22 April 1949, he was entitled to Rs. 53 on account of the wages for the period of suspension. He, therefore, instituted a suit on 7 March 1950 for recovery of Rs. 137-3-3 inclusive of interest. The defendants filed written statements on 27 April 1950 but they did not raise any objection about the jurisdiction of the court. On 19 July 1950, however, they filed an application contending: that the court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom214; (1953)55BOMLR30; ILR1953Bom387
Rajadhyaksha, J.(1) This application has come before a Division Bench as it involves decision of a somewhat important point of law in the matter of interpretation of Sub-section (3) of Section 12, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Kates Control Act, 1947. The applicant before us is the original defendant who had occupied the suit premises agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 5 to the opponent-plain tiff. The tenancy commenced on 1-11-1846, and was originally intended to last for 11 months. After the expiry of that period, the tenant continued to hold over. The tenant committed a default in the payment of rent and declined to vacate the premises in spite of a notice served upon him by the plaintiff landlord. The plaintiff alleged that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The claim was resisted by the tenant on the ground that he had paid all the rent that was due and also on the ground that the plaintiff-landlord did not require the premises for his own use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom177; (1952)54BOMLR955; ILR1953Bom55
FACTS The prosecution case was that one Laldas and six other persons (accused Nos. 1 to 7) had entered into a conspiracy to commit theft by illicitly cutting and removing Government trees in the Walheri Bari reserved forest between the villages of Walheri and Sojarbara. Laldas, Parashabhai and Jangubhai (accused Nos. 1-3) were partners of the firm Laldas Onkardas Company and had taken on contract the trees in provate survey Nos. 1 to 6 at Sojarbara. In December 1946 these three partners entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the theft of adjoining Government trees of the Walheri forest. In pursuance of this conspiracy, they did commit the theft as intended and thereby committed and offence under S. 120-B read with S. 379, Penal Code. This was the first charge framed at the trial against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The four other accused were Forest Officers and according to the prosecution case, they also joined this conspiracy. Andrade (accused No. 7) who was an Assistant Divisional Of...
Tag this Judgment!