Mumbai Court September 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.
Chimanlal Dipchand Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom397; (1954)56BOMLR321; ILR1954Bom1278
Chagla, C.J.1. There are two petitions made under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging Sub-section (2) of Section 6, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as being 'ultra vires' of the Legislature and also challenging a notification issued by Government under that Sub-section. There is also a reference made to us by the Civil -Judge, junior Division, Kumta, who had a similar question to consider and who has taken the view that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 is 'ultra vires' and has made a reference under Section 113, Civil P. C. The learned judge has given a very able and carefully considered judgment and his judgment has been of considerable help to us.2. Section 6, Tenancy Act provides for the fixation of a maximum rent and the maximum rent which a landlord is entitled to recover may be fixed irrespective of any agreement, usage, decree or order of the Court or of any law, and Sub-section. (1) provides that the maximum rent payable by a tenant for the lease of any land s...
Dawoodali Rahematulla Versey Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom323; (1954)56BOMLR238; ILR1954Bom752
1. By two orders dated 23 January, 1948, the Government of Bombay in exercise of -powers conferred by Sub-section. (4) of Section 4, Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947, requisitioned 8 out of 9 rooms in Chawl No. 200 and 9 rooms in Chawl No. 201 of 'Versey Colony' at Gundavali, Andheri. By the same orders the Government directed the Inspector of Land Requisition to allot the rooms to the tenants whose names were mentioned in a list supplied to that officer, on such conditions 'as may be found necessary'. The orders were modified by order dated 30 January, 1948, and all the 18 rooms in the two chawls were requisitioned & were allotted to the tenants in occupation thereof.The terms of allotment in so far as they are material were :'(1) Monthly rent of each room will be Rs. 25 including water-charges, but excluding electricity charges; Rs. 22 will be the rent and Rs. 3 will be water-charges.(3) The tenants should give one calendar month's notice in case of their vacating failing whic...
Babibai Thakuji Vs. FazluddIn Usmanbhai Momin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom282; (1954)56BOMLR108; ILR1954Bom535
ORDER1. A rather interesting question arises on this civil revision application. A Board under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act of 1939 was set up in the Khed taluka on 1st January, 1942. The last day for making applications tor adjustment of debts under Section 17 was 1st June, 1943. On 7th July, 1942, one Rajguru applied for the adjustment of the debt due by the husband of the petitioner, Thakuji. Notices were issued under Section 31 of the Act and in reply to the notice a statement was submitted by the petitioner, on 19th December, 1946, Thakuji having died in the meanwhile.In that statement she challenged five transactions of sale. Her case was that Thakuji had purported to sell three lands by three transactions of 1925, 1927 and 1931 to the brother of opponent No. 1 Kasambhai and there were two other transactions also purporting to be sales in favour of one Tarvade and these two lands had been ultimately transferred by Tarvade to Kasambhai and in partition between oppon...
State of Bombay Vs. Antony Marshall Montero
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR43
Dixit, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of conviction and sentence passed upon the applicant for an offence under Section 122(d) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The accused was prosecuted for, and convicted of, the offence and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Section 122, by Clause (d), provides that:Whoever is found between sunset and sunrise-...(d) lying or loitering in any street, yard or other place, being a reputed thief and without being able to give a satisfactory account of himself,...shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment' as stated in the section.2. In this case, the facts are that the accused was seen by a police constable (No. 686/ G) at Waroda Road, Bandra, at about 9-30 p.m. The police constable questioned him and, according to the police constable, the accused failed to give a satisfactory explanation about his presence at that place. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the police constable and convicte...
Karimun Nisa and ors. Vs. State Government of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1953
Reported in: 1955CriLJ28
ORDERSinha, C.J.(1) This application under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is filed for issue of certain writs against the Stats Government, respondent No. 1, and the Union Government, respondent No. 2, directing them not to order the petitioner to leave India against her wish.(2) Petitioner Karimun Nisa was born and brought up at Nagpur and her parents are citizens of India. She was married to Abdul Rahim who elected to be a citizen of Pakistan and went to Quetta on 28-12-1947. The petitioner went with him to Pakistan and remained there till, after the death of her husband, she returned to India [(Nagpur) on 17-12-1952 on a Pakistan passport No. 079685, dated Karachi, 21-11-1952, with a category 'C Indian visa No. 4192, dated 8-12-1952, granted by the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan.It is her case that she did not intend to leave India permanently and never lost her citizenship of tills Country. At any rate her domicile of origin, viz., India, was revived when she came ...
Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd. Vs. F. Jeejeebhoy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom247; (1954)56BOMLR78; ILR1954Bom579; (1954)ILLJ620Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai and it raises a very short point as to the construction of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The few facts which are necessary in order to appreciate the contentions put forward are that the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) was applied to Saurashtra with certain modifications on March 20, 1948, by the Saurashtra Ordinance No. VI of 1948. On March 13, 1950, a tribunal was set up at Rajkot under Section 7 of the Ordinance. On May 20, 1950, the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act came into force and on March 16, 1951, a reference was made by the Saurashtra Government under Section 10 of the Ordinance in respect of a dispute pending between the petitioners and their employees.On September 1, 1952, the petitioners stopped working the Mills, and between October 10, 1952, and October 15, 1952, the employees made various applications under Section 33A. On November 25, 1952, the tribunal made an awar...
Vijapur Municipality Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom278; (1954)56BOMLR131; ILR1954Bom524
Chagla, C.J.1. The second opponent company is under a contract with Government to supply to it a certain number of tube wells. These tube wells are to be constructed in various districts including the district of Mehsana, and for the purpose of the construction of these tube wells the second opponent company brought within the municipal limits of the Vijapur Municipality, which is the petitioner, certain articles like engines, pumps, pulleys, fly-wheels, accessories, spare parts, etc., and the petitioner Municipality imposed octroi duty upon these articles.The second opponent company failed to pay the octroi duty so imposed and the petitioner proceeded to attach the articles belonging to the second opponent company in order to recover the tax which had been imposed. The State of Bombay, which is opponent No. 1 before us, stepped in and issued an order on April 8, 1953, purporting to be an order issued in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 59 of the Bombay District ...
State Vs. Madan Dhanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR128
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused Madan Dhaiiji who was charged under Section 4(7)(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act with an offence of selling to the Medical Inspector Dr. Dange ghee which was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the Medical Inspector.2. The facts on which the prosecution case is based are that the Medical Inspector Dr. Dange visited the premises of the accused and purchased 1/4 seer of ghee from the accused. He divided the said 1/4 seer of ghee in three equal parts and put each part in a separate container and sealed all the containers in the presence of the accused. He then gave one of those sealed containers to the accused and sent one sealed container to the Public Analyst, The Public Analyst found on scientific test that the ghee had excess acidity of 1.8 per cent, over the standard acidity of 2.5 per cent. referred to in Rule 6(B)(1) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration of A...
Appa Ganpat SaThe and ors. Vs. K.B. Wassoodew and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom511; (1954)56BOMLR517
Chagla, C. J. 1. By this petition an order passed by the Revenue Tribunal is challenged on the ground that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.2. The property in question, which are lands bearing survey Nos. 189, 190 and 200 situate at Man, taluka Mulshi, District Poona, belonged to one Chitaman vasudeo Bhat, and the opponent Narayan Hari Bharane was his protected tenant. An agreement of sale dated December 17, 1948, was entered into between Bhat and the petitioners. The consideration was Rs. 5,999, and Rs. 1,001 were paid by the petitioners to Bhat on the date when the agreement of sale was executed. In pursuance of this agreement a registered sale-deed was passed by Bhat in favour of the petitioners on 20-4-1949.The petitioners thereafter served the opponent Bharane with one year's notice on 30-3-1950; and when the period of notice expired, they took out proceeedings before the Mamlatdar for possession of the property. The Mamlatdar ordered the posses...
Mangaldas N. Verma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1953
Reported in: [1954]25ITR175(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The case of the applicant before us was referred to the Income-tax Investigation Commission by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. The Commission submitted its report on the October 16, 1950, and after considering the report the Central Government directed under Section 8(2) of the Act that appropriate assessment proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act be taken against the assessee with a view to assess or re-assess the income which had escaped income-tax assessments for the years 1941-42, 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 and the excess profits tax assessments for the chargeable accounting periods ended March 31, 1941, March 31, 1942, March 31, 1943, March 31, 1944, March 31, 1945, and March 31, 1946. In pursuance of those directions the Income-tax Officer and the Excess Profits Tax Officer have made re-assessments for the relevant years. 2. Under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »