Mumbai Court November 1953 Judgments
State Vs. Harbansing Kisansing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom339; (1954)56BOMLR258; ILR1954Bom784
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 366, Penal Code. The charge against the respondent was that on or about 26th April 1952, at Bandra he kidnapped Sharifa Mahomed in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and thereby committed an offence under Section 366, Penal Code. Another charge had been framed against the respondent and that was under Section 376. But it appeared clear that this latter offence was alleged to have been committed outside the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and so the accused was not tiled in respect of this offence.2. In support of the charge under Section 376 the prosecution examined the gin, Abbas, whom the mother of the girl has remarried, and the doctor. They have also led the evidence of other witnesses; but it is unnecessary to refer to that evidence. After the evidence was ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govind Pandurang Phalke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1956Bom61; (1955)57BOMLR957; 1956CriLJ209
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a petition challenging an order made by the Additional District Magistrate, North Satara, on 24-7-1953, by which the District Magistrate ordered the petitioner to remove himself outside the area of North Satara district for a period of one year and not to return to the said area during that period. The petitioner is the President of a labour union consisting of workers working in Cooper Engineering Works in Satara, and on 2-5-1953, he was served with a notice under Section 56, Police Act and that notice set out the various grounds on which the externing authorities proposed to take action. The petitioner was heard, he offered an explanation, called witnesses, and the externing authority was satisfied that a case had been made out under Section 56, Police Act and passed the order as already stated on 24-7-1953.2. Mr. Patel who appears for the petitioner has challenged this order on two grounds. The first ground is that the externing authority has taken into consi...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Nirmalabai Revadas Vs. Revadas Bhikhabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom337; (1954)56BOMLR249; ILR1954Bom610
Shah, J.1. The complainant Nirmalabai filed a complaint --being Case No. 12/S/53-- in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, against Her husband Rewadas Bhikabhai for an offence under Section 5, Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, No. 25 of 1946. It was the case of the complainant that even though the respondent was married to her, he contracted a bigamous marriage on 19th January 1953, at Broach with one Champabai and thereby committed an offence under Section 5, Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 25 of 1946.The learned Magistrate was of the view that the offence having been committed within the territorial limits of the Magistrate, First Class, Broach, he had no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Magistrate, therefore, dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come to this Court in revision.2. On behalf of the complainant reliance was placed upon Section 8 of the Bombay Act 25 of 1946 in support of the contention...
Tag this Judgment!Trikamdas Udeshi Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom427; (1954)56BOMLR264; ILR1954Bom727
ORDER1. A question of considerable public importance arises on this revision application. The petitioner boarded a tram-car belonging to the Bombay Electric Supply & Transfer Undertaking of the Bombay Municipality at Crawford Market. and got out at Bori Bunder without purchasing a ticket. He was thereupon called upon by the Traflfc Supervisor to pay a sum of Rs. 5 as penalty. The petitioner paid the fine and obtained a receipt for it from the Supervisor. He then filed a suit in the Small Causes Court to recover this amount as having been paid under coercion. The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit. It is from that order that this revision application is preferred, 2. On 11-9-1950, the General Manager of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking issued a notice delegating certain powers under Section 68-B, Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to certain officers in respect of certain functions mentioned in the notice, and one of the powers delegated to a Traffic Supervisor was ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivamurteppa Gurappa Ganiger Vs. Fakirappa Basangauda Channappagaudar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom430; (1954)56BOMLR354; ILR1954Bom1115
1. These two appeals arise respectively from suits Nos. 244 of 1949 and 91 of 1949 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharwar.2. The lands in suit No. 244 of 1949 are B. S. No. 294/1A and B. S. No. 623/1. In the plaint they are valued at Bs. 4,000. The land in suit No. 91 of 1949 is survey No. 233/1 which is valued in the plaint at Rs. 3,500. These three lands together with other lands originally belonged to one Gurappa.Gurappa had a son Fakirappa. Gurappa died first leaving him surviving Fakirappa & his widow Gangawa. Fakirappa died on February 5, 1930, leaving him surviving his widow Parvatewa, his daughter Shivagangawa and his mother Gangawa. Parvatewa died on 22-11-1942. Thereafter Gangawa adopted Shivamurteppa as a son to her deceased husband on 5-4-1943. Shivagangawa is the plaintiff in one of the suits, while Shivamurteppa is the defendant in both the suits.3. On 3-4-1944, two documents were executed. One of them is a gift deed which is Exh. 64 in the case. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Dullab and anr. Vs. Vallab Ganpat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom322; (1954)56BOMLR219
ORDER1. The question that arises in these two revision applications is whether under the Tenancy Act it is open to a landlord to have a reasonable rent fixed so as to increase the rent which the tenant is liable to pay under a lease. In revision application No. 952 the lease is for 10 years and the rent reserved is Rs. 175/-, and in revision application No. 953 the lease is also or 10 years and the rent reserved is Rs. 125. The Civil Judge, Senior 'Division, Dhulia, has fixed the reasonable rent in revision application No. 952 at Rs. 340 and in revision application No. 953 at Rs. 245, and it is against these, orders that these two revision applications are preferred.2. Turning to the old Act of 1939 which applies, Section 14A provides:'(1) The rent payable by a tenant other than a protected tenant shall be the rent agreed upon between such tenant and his landlord. Where there is a dispute as regards the reasonableness of the rent payable according to such agreement the rent payable sha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›