Mumbai Court October 1955 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.
Ramchand Tolaram Khatri and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom287; (1956)58BOMLR90; 1956CriLJ585; ILR1956Bom343
Vyas, J.1. These are two appeals filed from a judgment of the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay. Appeal No. 652 or 1955 is by Ramchand Tolaram Khatri who was originally accused 2 and Appeal No. 671 of 1955 is filed by Mr. Rijumal Kripalani who was originally accused 1. The learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, has convicted both these appellants of an offence under Section 161 read with Section 34, Penal Code and has sentenced the appellant in Appeal No. 671 of 1955 to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-or in default to suffer one month's further rigorous imprisonmentThe learned Judge has sentenced the appellant in Appeal No. 652 of 1955 to suffer 9 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-6r in default to suffer 15 days' further rigorous imprisonment. Both the appellants, as I have said, have been convicted of an offence under Section 161 read with Section 34, Penal Code.2. The charge against these appellants, who were original...
Kantilal Amarchand Shah Vs. Itmadi Hassanali Jeewabhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR272
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Although this appeal raises a very short' question of construction as to the authority to be obtained by an attorney under Rule 568, it also raises a very important question with regard to the duties and responsibilities of attorneys and also the duties and responsibilities of counsel.2. A suit was filed, being suit No. 1925 of 1948, by two members of Shia Ismaili community against 14 trustees appointed for the management of His Highness the Aga Khan Diamond Jubilee Trust. The suit was for the removal of the trustees on the ground that they had mismanaged the trust fund which amounted to Rs. 24,00,000, and the main charge against the trustees was that they had allowed this amount to remain deposited in a bank called the Associated Banking Corporation Limited, which was ultimately wound up. Defendant No. 14, the respondent, was one of the trustees and the appellant, Mr. Kantilal, acted as his attorney. The defences of all the trustees were common and the brunt of the...
Arjun Raghu Patil and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom183; 1956CriLJ389
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The five appellants have been convicted under Section 148, I. P. Code, Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C., and under Section 324 read with Section 149, I. P. C. Of them, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months under Section 148, I. P. C., to transportation for life under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C., and to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 read With Section 149, I. P. C.Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 have been ordered to be detained in the Borstal School at Dharwar or any other suitable place of a like nature for a period of four years. It is this order of conviction and sentence that has been strenuously challenged before us by Mr. Bhasme.2. The offence took place in a field outside the village of Kokil on 27-5-1954, about mid-day. The prosecution case against the five appellants and two others at the trial was that they had committed the offence in question in pursuance of the common i...
Durlabhai Fakirbhai Vs. Jhaverbhai Bhikhabhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom285; (1957)59BOMLR85; ILR1956Bom335
Chagla, C.J.1. A very short question has been referred to this Full Bench and it arises with regard to the proper interpretation of Act 33 of 1952 which amended Section 34, Tenancy Act. A few facts which may be stated in order to appreciate the point raised are that the landlord) gave a notice on 6-3-1952 to his tenant under Section 34, Tenancy Act on the ground that he needed the land bona fide for his personal cultivation. The notice was to expire on 31-3-1953. The landlord filed an application for possession under Section 29 before the Mamlatdar on 11-4-1953. The Mamlatdar granted possession, in appeal the Prant Officer confirmed the decision of the Mamlatdar, and in revision the Bombay Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of the two lower Courts, and the matter has now come up before us on this Full Bench.2. Now, when the notice was given on 6-3-1952 the conditions laid down in Section 34 which permitted the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant were satisfied. By the Amend...
Parwatibai Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom127; 1956CriLJ379
Chagla, C.J.1. By this petition the wife of the detenu challenges an order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police on 29-7-1953. This order was confirmed by Government on 4-8-1953. The de-'tenu could not be traced and therefore an order was issued by the Commissioner under Section 6 of the Preventive Detention Act and it was published on 14-1-1954.The detenu was arrested on 24-7-1955 and was put up before a Presidency Magistrate for having committed a breach of the order Issued under Section 6. He was released on bail and he was continued on bail till 19-8-1955. On that day a charge-sheet was filed against him and the bail was cancelled. On that very day the petitioner's husband was detained pursuant to the order passed. 011 29-7-1953. It is this detention which has been challenged by this petition.2. What is urged by Mr. Gumaste with con. siderable force is that the Parliament has afford-ed a very important safeguard to the subject by Act 61 of 1952 which introduced Section ...
Bhanubhai Ramnath Dave Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom267
Chainani, J.1. This is an unfortunate case, in which a quarrel between young boys has resulted in serious consequences.2. The accused as well as the deceased Harshabhai were residents of Vaso village and were studying in an English School in that village. On 26-4-1955 at about 1 p. m. both of them had gone to a pond in the village for taking a bath. Witnesses Vithalbhai, Ramanlal, Shankar and Chhanganbhai had also gone to ' this pond for washing clothes.While the accused and the deceased were bathing, they started throwing water, on each other. Harshadbhai came out of the pond, changed. the clothes, brought some earth sods and threw them at the accused. This annoyed the accused, who came out of water, took out a pen knife from his clothes and gave a blow with it on the neck of Harshad. Harhad bled profusely from this injury. He walked back to wards the village, but he fell down some distance away. Vithalbhai, Ramanlal, Shankar and Chhagan also left the place. They did not inform Harsha...
State Vs. Mehebub Maulabux
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom270; 1956CriLJ505
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was prosecuted under Section 85(1), Bombay Prohibition Act.2. The evidence of Police Head Constable, Mohanlal shows that on 16-12-1954, the respondent was found drunk on a public road and, that he was then unable to take care of himself. He cailed the Punchas and made a Panchnama Ex. 1-A, in which the Punchas noted the symptoms found on the respondent. We would not rely on this Panchanama, as none of the Panchas has been examined. The respondent was immediately sent to a doctor, who has described the symptoms found on the respondent.The certificate issued by him shows that the respondent was smelling of liquor, that he was unconscious, that his eyes were congested, that his 'pupils' were dilated and that he could not take care of himself. The doctor has also stated that the respondent was suffering from alcoholic intoxication. The respondent in his statement stated that he had not been arrested ...
State Vs. Ardeshir Hormusji Bhiwandiwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom219; (1956)58BOMLR66; 1956CriLJ488; ILR1956Bom321; (1956)IILLJ26Bom
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, acquitting the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence under Section 92, Factories Act 1948, for breach of the provisions of Section 6, Factories Act, 1948, read with Rule 4 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. The appeal raises an important question-of construction of Clause (k) (1) and Clause (m) of Section 2, Factories Act 1948. The respondent is the occupier of the Wadia Mahal Salt Works at Wadala where the salt is made, and the questions which have arisen before us are whether the site where the salt works are situated is 'premises' within the meaning of Clause (m) of Section 2 and whether the sale is made as a result of any manufacturing process within the meaning of Clause (k) (1) of Section 2. 2. The respondent, Ardeshir Hormusji Bhiwandiwala is a partner in the firm of Messrs. H. M. O. H. Bhiwandiwala and Co. who are occupiers of the Wadi...
State Vs. Pandurang Tatyasaheb Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom711; 1956CriLJ1306
Shah, J. 1. This is an application filed by the State of Bombay praying for an order enhancing thesentence passed upon the accused, Pandurang Tatya-saheb Shinde. The accused was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, South Satara, at Sangli for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code. The trial was held with the aid of four Assessors. Three of the Assessors were of the opinion that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. The fourth Assessor was not present at the time of the arguments and the learned Judge did not record his opinion.Agreeing with the view of the Assessors who were present, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the offence charged. Having regard to certain circumstances mentioned in para 24 of the judgment the learned Judge sentenced the accused to transportation for life and further ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the accused p...
Dwarkadas Jivraj Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom163; 1956CriLJ380
1. The Petitioner is the owner of House No. 27, Picket Cross Road, Princess Street, Bombay. A Sanitary Inspector attached to the Bombay Municipality inspected on 8-2-1954 the passage on the ground floor of that building. Thereafter notices were served upon the petitioner and one Kodumal Rewachand under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 3 of 1888.By the notices the petitioner and Kodumal Rewachand were asked to abate the nuisance committed in the passage by removing articles such as chairs, benches and tables kept in the' passage on the ground floor. The notices were not complied with.The Sanitary Inspector again visited the premises on 11-2-1954 and he found the articles in the same position in which they were on 8-2-1954. Thereafter a complaint was filed against the petitioner and the said Kodumal charging them with having committed offences under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. He contended ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »