Mumbai Court September 1952 Judgments
Hiralal Sutwala and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ481
ORDERSinha, C.J.1. This order will also govern the decision of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45. of 1951.2. The applicant in this application, Hiralal, is being prosecuted along with Harishankar and his wife Shrimati Gomti Devi, who are applicants in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45 of. 1951, in the Court of the Judge-Magistrate, Hoshangabad, under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of Clause 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. They made applications to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution and raised in each of them the following grounds:1. Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, is 'ultra vires' of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of India, as it delegates legislative powers; and2. The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, has not been validly extended.In their supplementary applications, they raised the following contentions:1. The power...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom242; (1953)55BOMLR86; ILR1953Bom1187
Chagla, C.J. (1) These two petitions before us challenge the constitutionality of certain provisions of Act 29 of 1950 which is the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In the first petition the petitioner is S Swetamber Murtipujak Jain and a resident of Vejalpur in the Panch Maha's District and the petitioner is the 'vahivatdar' of a Jain Derasar situate in that place in the second petition the petitioners arc the trustees of the Parsi Panchayet Funds. Both the petitions challenge the Act on more or less identical grounds. It would be perhaps better if we first deal with the petition presented by the 'vahivatdar' of the Jain Derasar. Before we do so it would be perhaps advisable to look at the object with which the Act was passed and its main provisions.(2) The Act was passed to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Bombay. Chapter II of the Act sets up the establishment which consists of a Charity Commissioner and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rustom Dinshaw and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom271; (1953)55BOMLR268; ILR1954Bom161
(1) This is a petition for a writ of mandamus or a write direction, or order of the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, restraining the respondent, the State of Bombay, from enforcing a requisition order.(2) The petitioners are husband and wife, and since 1939 petitioner 1, the husband, was a tenant of flat No. 3 in Oval View, Queens Road, Bombay. In this flat petitioner 2, the wife, started keeping paying guests in one of the rooms. In 1947 in flat No. 7 in the same building became vacant, and the tenants of the flat sub-let the flat to petitioner 2, subletting being then allowed under the law. In April 1947 the petitioners with their daughter shifted to flat No. 7 and have been living there ever since. From that date onwards petitioner No. 2, the wife, expanded the business of taking, paying guests and conducted it in the whole of flat No. 3 which is on the first floor of the said building. On 23-1-1952, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›