Mumbai Court August 1953 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.
Shantaram D. Salvi Vs. M.M. Chudasama and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom361; (1954)56BOMLR350; ILR1954Bom1271
ORDER1. This is a petition for a writ in the nature of 'certiorari', or a writ of prohibition, or any other writ, direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution in a matter arising out of certain proceedings and inquiry held in respect of the petitioner's conduct under the City of Bombay Police Act (4 of 1902).2. Briefly stated the facts are these: The petitioner was appointed as a sub-inspector in the Bombay Police Force in August 1939. In 1948 he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector. In June 1949 he was attached to the Byculla police Station as a Deputy Inspector when he was suspended from the Police Force.Between June 18 and 8-9-1949, he was called several times by Inspector Subhand of the Anti-Corruption Branch, and his statement was recorded. He was furnished with a charge sheet by the Superintendent,. 'F' Division, based on statements recorded by Inspector Subhand, alleging that the petitioner by reason of the charges mentioned therein had acted in a manner prejudi...
Motiram Krishnarao and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1953
Reported in: 1955CriLJ819
Mudholkar, J.1. The three appellants Motiram, Kisan and Budhram were tried Jointly before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, appellants Motiram and Kisan of offences Under Sections 366, 376 & 342, IPC and the appellant Budhram of an offence Under Section 368, IPC Each of the former was convicted of the offences for which he was tried and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years in respect of the offences Under Sections 366 and 376 each and to rigorous imprisonment for four months in respect of the offence Under Section 342, IPC The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Budhram was convicted of the offence Under Section 368, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The relevant facts are briefly these: One Smt. Ashabi, a married woman, left her husband's house at Bombay and. came voluntarily to Amravati along with her friend Ramcharan who was In service at Bombay and whose relatives lived in Wadali, a suburb of Amravati. After keepin...
F.E. Darukhanawalla Vs. Khemchand Lalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom254; (1954)56BOMLR105; ILR1954Bom544
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, and it arises out of a suit filed before him for the recovery of arrears of rent, and for ejectment. The suit was filed on April 18, 1952, and the contention raised before him was that the suit was not maintainable in view of fa. 28 of the Bombay-Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which confers jurisdiction to hear rent suits upon the Civil Judges, Junior Division; and the question that the learned Judge had to consider was, whether the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947, as amended by Bombay Act XLIII of 1951 applied to the premises in Question, which were situate in the cantonment area of Deolali.2. Mr. Desai, who has appeared before us to support the reference and the view taken by the learned Judge, viz., that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947, does not apply to cantonment areas, has contended, that under...
Maneklal Amratlal Vs. Collector of Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom235; (1953)55BOMLR992; ILR1954Bom473
Chagla, C.J.1. By this petition an order of requisition made by the Collector of Ahmedabad on May 15, 1953, is being challenged by the petitioner. The property requisitioned is a stall in the vegetable market at Dholka, and the ground of the challenge is that the order does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act.2. Now, this property, as the order itself states, has been requisitioned under Sub-section (1) of s. 5 of the Act, and turning to that section it provides :'If in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do, the State Government may by order in writing requisition any land for the purpose of the State or any other public purpose:'The power of the State to requisition which is conferred by this sub-section is undoubtedly very Wide. It may requisition any land, and 'land' is denned as including buildings, and it is clear that the power to requisition is not confined to requisitioning residential buil...
Ram Bahadur Thakur and Co. Vs. Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom176; (1953)55BOMLR931; ILR1954Bom334
Chagla, C.J.1. These are two appeals from two orders passed by Mr. Justice Coyajee. One is on a notice of motion taken out by the appellants, who are the defendants in a suit, filed in Bombay, being suit No. 284 of 1953, for an order under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code staying the suit on the ground that they had filed a previous suit on the same cause of action in the Calcutta High Court. The other is on a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs in suit No. 284 of 1953 for an order restraining the appellants and the defendants from proceeding with the suit which they had filed in the Calcutta High Court. Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissed the appellants' notice of motion for stay, and on the notice of motion taken out by the respondents he made an order restraining the appellants from proceeding with the suit filed by them in the Calcutta High Court.2. Now, a few facts might be stated. A contract was entered into between the parties by which the appellants agreed to sell to t...
Jageram Malik Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: 1955CriLJ974
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Police Force having joined as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 1-1-1924. He was confirmed in that post on 1-1-1927. After the Police Action against the Hyderabad State, the petitioner was. first sent, on deputation, to Nanded in that State and subsequently to Bhainsa as Station Oifficer. On 25-2-1950 a complaint was made against him for extortion by one Gangoo to the Director-General of Police, Hyderabad. Thereupon, an enquiry was made by Shri Jham Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanded. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and reported that the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be false. It would appear that another report in connection with the same affair was made to the D. I. G., Aurangabad. The D. 1. G. himself went to Bhainss, made an enquiry, during the course of which he recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the bas...
Ranchhod Ravji Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom212; (1953)55BOMLR988; ILR1954Bom467; (1954)ILLJ455Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner is an employee of the weaving department of the night shift of the third respondent Mills. It appears that on March 21, 1950, a settlement was arrived at with the Mills with regard to the change-over of workers in the weaving department in the day shift and the night shift. On January 30, 1952, a notice was given by respondent No. 4 terminating this settlement. Respondent No. 4 Is the representative labour Union of respondent No. 3 Mills. On July 29, 1952, the Mills gave a notice of the termination of the settlement of the change-over and on July 30, 1952, a settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 discontinuing the changeover of the workers of the day shift to the night shift, and this arrangement was registered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.It appears that the petitioner and all the other employees of the night shift were not members of respondent No. 4 labour Union and they made a griev...
Somalal Nathalal Mistri Vs. the Vasant Investment Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR74
Dixit, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, setting aside an ex parte decree on certain conditions set out in the order.2. On or about October 2, 1946, respondent No. 1 filed against the appellant and respondent No. 2 a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2,44,702-8-6. The suit was based upon a promissory note executed by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 1 on or about December 21,1944, for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. The suit was fixed for hearing on December 14, 1951. It is a remarkable circumstance that a suit filed on October 2, 1946, should have come up for hearing before the lower Court on December 14, 1951, that is to say, after an interval of a period of five years. On that date the appellant was absent. Respondent No. 2 contested the suit and on December 27, 1951, the trial Court passed in favour of respondent No, J a decree for the amount claimed with interest and costs. Against the appellant the decree was an ex parte decree a...
State Vs. Amratlal Bhogilal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom216; (1953)55BOMLR975; ILR1954Bom459
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against the order passed by the Additional Stipendiary Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, acquitting the opponent, who was prosecuted under Section 4 (1) (a) and Section 4 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925. The opponent, who was accused No. 2 in the trial Court, is the manager of a shop in Ahmeda-bad, at which ghee and other articles are sold. On March 7, 1952, the food inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipality, witness Dave, went to this shop. He purchased 3/4 lb. of ghee from the opponent and paid him Rs. 1-11-0 for it. He told the opponent that the ghee was to be sent for analysis. He then divided the ghee purchased by him in three parts, put each of them in a separate bottle and sealed, labelled and signed each bottle. One of the three bottles was given to the opponent, who was asked to pass a receipt. The opponent then gave the inspector a receipt stating that he had received Rs. 1-11-0 for 3/4 lb. of ...
HuseIn Miya Dosumiya Vs. Chandubhai Jethabhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom239; (1953)55BOMLR946; ILR1954Bom364
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this revision application is with regard to the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to maintain a suit in which an order made by the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy Act has been challenged as 'ultra vires', and the brief facts which lead up to this revision application may be stated.2. An application was made by the landlords, who are the opponents, for possession against their tenant who is the petitioner, under Section29 of the Tenancy Act to the Mamlatdar, and a consent order was taken on August 24, 1948, by which the petitioner agreed to hand over possession to the opponents. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter there was a fresh tenancy agreement between him and the opponents and that was in July 1949, and by reason of this fresh tenancy agreement the petitioner continued to remain on the land and the landlords never took possession of it.It is further the case of the petitioner that in July 1950 he exchanged with the consent o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›