Mumbai Court December 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.
Yeshwant Sakharam and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom409; 1956CriLJ718
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal by accused 1 to 5 against their conviction under Section 395, I. P. C., and the sentences passed upon them. The prosecution story briefly is that on the evening of 2-6-1955 at about 2-30 p. m., witness Vithal was waiting for a bus at the bus-stand near Prabhadevi corner. He had in his pocket Rs. 20/-. Accused 1 then pulled Vithal out of the queue and started beating him. He asked Vithal whether he had gone there to murder Baburao and Who had sent him for that purpose. He was then dragged to an open 'maidan' behind the Century Mills.The other four accused also joined accused 1 and questioned Vithal whether he had gone there to murder Baburao. Vithal was given a further beating in the 'maidan' and thereafter he was taken to a passage on the first floor of the chawl known as Rawate's Chawl. ' There all the five accused beat him. He was stripped of all his clothes, which were taken away by the accused.Thereafter he was allowed to go. Vithal then Went to hi...
The State Vs. John Joseph D'Souza and Anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom606; 1956CriLJ1065
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Bombay, in Crl. Case No. 1455/P of 1955. The two accused John Joseph D'Souza and Achuta Kupa Sherigara were charged before the learned trial Magistrate with having committed an offence under Section 65(b) read with Section 81, Bombay Prohibition Act 25 of 1949. The offence was triable as a summons case.The proceedings before the learned Magistrate were commenced by a charge-sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, N. P. S. Bandra, 'X' Division, on 11-11-1954. Thereafter the proceedings were adjourned from time to time and even on 11-4-1955, the Panchas were not present. The learned Magistrate issued summons to the Panchas and adjourned the proceedings to 22nd April, 1955. On that day also the Panchas were not present because they were not served.Sub-Inspector Ranpise was, however, present and the Police Prosecutor requested for time. The learned Magistra...
Karamsingh Nihalsing Vs. Mankuji Zivaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom12; (1956)58BOMLR382; ILR1956Bom532
1. This revision application raises a short procedural point of some importance under Section 14, Money-lenders Act 31 of 1947. The petitioner had sued to recover Rs. 938/- from the opponent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The claim had been made on two promissory-noted alleged to have been executed by the opponent on 6th September and 12-10-1950 respectively.The opponent resisted the claim on the ground that the promissory-notes had not been executed by him and that he had received no consideration under them. This suit was tried by the learned trial Judge as a small cause suit. On-evidence the learned Judge found that the promissory-notes had not been executed by the opponent and that no consideration had been received by him. That is why the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.While dismissing the plaintiff's suit, the learned Judge has ordered that all the licences held by the petitioner as a money-lender in the province should be cancelled and that a copy ...
Zaverchand Panaji Vs. Mayadevi Chimanlal Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR619
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an appeal arising from an application for execution in which execution is going on before a Court to which it has been transferred. The judgment debtor made an application in that Court for instalments under Section 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act. That Court held that it had no power to grant the instalments, inasmuch as the powers under Section 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act could only be used by the Court which passed the decree. Hence this appeal.2. Now, Section 24 of the Money-lenders Act runs as follows:Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court may, at any time, on application of a judgment-debtor, after notice to the decree-holder, direct that the amount of any decree passed against him, whether before or after the date on which this Act comes into force, in respect of a loan, shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions, and payable on such dates, as, having regard to the circum...
Apaya Dundyappa and ors. Vs. Govind Dattatraya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom625
1. This is an appeal arising from a suit which has been filed by the plaintiffs who had purchased the property for defendant No. 1 on 6-9-1945. It appears that prior to the plaintiff's purchase there was litigation between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 with regard to the property in suit, and defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for possession of the lands in suit as against defendant No. 2 in the year 1932.In the year 1940 defendant No. 1 made an application for execution of this decree joining asparties to the execution application defendantNo. 3 and his sons defendants Nos. 4 and 5 alsoupon an allegation that in the year 1928 defendant No. 3 appeared to have taken a Thev Patrafrom defendant No. 2.Notices of the application for execution wereserved upon defendants Nos. 3 to 5; but they tookno notice whatsoever of the application for execution. It was then held that the Thev Patrawhich had been taken by defendant No. 3 had totake subject to the result of the suit which hadbeen file...
State Vs. Bhaishankar Uttamrai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom660; (1956)58BOMLR435; 1956CriLJ1186; ILR1956Bom511
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal from an acquittal and it raises a short but interesting question under the Bombay Harijan (Removal of Social Disabilities) Act, 1946, viz. the question of construction of Section 2, Clause (1), which defines 'shop'. The definition of 'shop' is preceded by the definition of 'place of public entertainment' which is contained in Section 2, Clause (e). 'Place of public entertainment' is defined as meaning:'any place, whether enclosed or open, to which the public are admitted, and where any kind of food or drink is supplied for consumption on the premises for the profit or gain of any person owing or having an interest in or managing such place; and includes a refreshment-room, eating house coffee-house, boarding-house, lodging house and hotel'. Shop, is defined as meaning : 'any premises where goods are sold either by retail or wholesale or both and includes a laundry, a hair cutting saloon or such other place whore services are rendered to customers.' Now, the...
State Vs. Sundarlal Govardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom88; 1956CriLJ211
ORDERBavdekar, J.1. This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, East Khan-desh, Jalgaon, for quashing the conviction of one Sundarlal Govardhan, who had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Bhusawal, of an offence under Section 124, Bombay Police Act.2. The Prosecution case was that upon some suspicion the police searched the house of Sundarlal and failed to find anything in connection with the offence which they were investigating. Sunderlal was, however, found in possession of one woollen blanket, five sarees, and two pairs of white canvas shoes. He was prosecuted for an offence under Section 124, Bombay Police Act.3. His defence was that he had purchased these articles from various hawkers for the purpose of his wife and his two children who were at his native place. The learned Magistrate disbelieved this defence; disbelieved that he has got as a matter of fact either wife or children, convicted him and sentenced him to pay ...
Ram Bhagwandas Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom364
Chagla, C.J.1. These three appeals raise a common question and can be disposed of by a common judgment. The premises in question belong to the Bombay Municipality and they were open plots of land and they were let out to one Khudabaksh Irani about 30 years ago, and in 1947 this Irani sold this land to Tyaballi. Irani erected structures on this open plot of land and let out tenements in those structures to various tenants, and the three appellant before us are tenants to whom the tenements were let out by Irani.In August 1951 the Bombay Municipality filed a suit for ejecting Tyaballi and on 30-1-1952 a consent decree was arrived at between the Municipality and Tyaballi. Under this decree the defendant was to deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the plot clear of all structures standing thereon, and the decree further provided that in the event of the defendant failing to remove the structures on or before 29-2-1952, the defendant was to give up possession of the said plot, toget...
The State Vs. Shamrao Navji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR355
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, North Satara, at Satara in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1955. The accused Shamrao Navji Patil was charged before the Special Judge with having committed offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge tried the case under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, and acquitted the accused. The learned Special Judge held that it was established by the prosecution that the accused had obtained gratification for issuing a solvency certificate to the complainant BalkrishnaRamchandra Ghadge and to Vishnu Sambhaji. The learned Special Judge also held that there was a proper sanction given for prosecuting the accused. But the learned Judge held that there was no provision of law which required a Police Patil to issue a solvency certificate as part of his duty and, therefore, receiving ...
Sri Chhugomal Jasharam Bhatija Vs. District Judge and Abdul Kadar Uppa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR545
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Deputy Custodian General of India under Section 27(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, and it raises some interesting questions as to the proper construction of that Act.2. An order was passed by the Deputy Custodian on October 23, 1952, declaring Mahomed Abdul Kadar Uppal an evacuee and the Deputy Custodian declared him an evacuee under Section 2(d)(iii) holding that he had, after August 14, 1947, obtained otherwise than by way of purchase or exchange, right to or interest in or benefit from a property which is treated as evacuee or abandoned property under the law for the time being in force in Pakistan. Abdul Kadar appealed against this decision to the District Judge of Thana and the District Judge of Thana held that the facts on which the informants relied had not been established and allowed the appeal. Against that decision the informants went in revision to the Custodian General and the Custodian General dif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »