Mumbai Court January 1956 Judgments
Bapurao Dhondiba Jagtap Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom300; (1956)58BOMLR418; 1956CriLJ598; ILR1956Bom753
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the Court of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate for having contravened an order passed by the Commissioner of Police under Section 37(3), Bombay Police Act, on 12-11-1955, and he has come before us under Article 228 of the Constitution contending that the case before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate involves a substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution and therefore it should be transferred to this Court and this Court should decide that substantial question of law. 2. Section 37(3), Police Act, empowers the Commissioner of Police by an order in writing to prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as he considers such prohibition to Be necessary for the preservation of public order. There is a proviso to this sub-section to this effect: 'Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than fifteen days without the sanction of the State Government'. Acting und...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Narsinhadas and ors. Vs. Bai Sushila
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom402
Chainani, J. 1. This Is an appeal by the original defendants. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections. The plaintiff's husband Mafatlal was the son of defendant 1 and brother of defendant 2. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 2, The plaintiff was married to Mafatlal on 3-1-1951. Unfortunately for her, Mafatlal died in the following year on 17-8-1942. At that time Mafatlal was 24 years old.On 1,-10-1942, the plaintiff left defendant 1's house and went to reside with her mother.In January 1952, she gave a notice to the de-fendants claiming maintenance. Her claim was repudiated by the defendants. On 15-4-1952, the plaintiff filed the present suit. She alleged in the plaint that, at the time when her husband expired, he was joint along with the defendants l and 2, that the family had a joint family business of building contractors and that the defendants had acquired extensive properties from the income of this business.She claimed Rs. 70/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 25/- per ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Manager, Sutaria Automobiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom433; (1956)58BOMLR427; 1956CriLJ859; ILR1956Bom613; (1956)IILLJ303Bom
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent in two criminal cases filed against him. In both these cases the respondent was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 63 read with Section 92, Factories Act.The learned Magistrate who tried this case has held that the offence charged was not proved. That is why he passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent. In the present appeals, the State contends that the orders of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate are based on an erroneous construction of the material provisions of Rule 91 framed under the Factories Act.2. The facts leading to the prosecution are not in dispute. Mr. Keskar, the Junior Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur, visited the Sutaria Automobiles at 8.10 p.m. on 12-3-1955. The respondent is the occupier and manager of the Sutaria Automobiles. Sutaria Automobiles is a factory within the meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Mokshamadanlal Vs. Hariprasad Vishnuprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom650; (1956)58BOMLR568; ILR1956Bom748
ORDER1. One Chhotubhai obtained a decree against the respondent for Rs. 559-5-6 in Civil Suit No. 120 of 1939 of the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Broach. The decree was passed on 17-11-1939. The decree was assigned by the decree-holder Chhotubhai to the petitioner. The petitioner as assignee of the decree filed, on 5-12-1950, an application in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Broach, exercising Insolvency jurisdiction for serving a notice of insolvency upon the respondent under Section 6A of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The respondent failed to comply with the notice within one month. The Insolvency Court at Broach passed an order on 23-2-1951, 'holding that an act of insolvency had been committed by the respondent. The petitioner then applied on 23-4-1951 by Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1951 to the Insolvency Court at Broach for an order adjudicating the respondent an insolvent. The respondent appeared in answer to the notice and contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Keshavlal Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom504; 1956CriLJ879
Gajendkagadkar, J. 1. Two points have been raised before us by Mr. Thakore in this appeal. He contends that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained on the merits because the order of conviction in substance is based on the evidence of accomplice witnesses and the only corroboration on which the prosecution is able to rely is the corroboration coming from the account books written by the accomplices themselves. Mr. Thakore's argument is that once it is held that the witnesses are accomplices, they should not be allowed to corroborate themselves even though they seek to corroborate their oral testi-mony by the production of a contemporaneous document in the form of account books. Corroboration which is required in law to the testimony of an accomplice is corroboration coming from independent sources, and Mr. Thakore is prepared to say that even if the evidence of the prosecution is taken at its highest the only corroboration which the prosecution has been able to produce is f...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Raoji Kaloji Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom528; 1956CriLJ981
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises a short question as to the validity of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, solely on the ground that the search made prior to the institution of the present proceedings was illegal. A charge was levied against the respondent under Section 65(b), Bombay Prohibition Act.The learned Magistrate who tried the case was satisfied that the charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly the respondent was convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.This order was challenged by the respondents before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur and the only point which appears to have been raised before the learned Judge was that the search was illegal. The learned Judge accepted this point and we will assume that the learned Judge was right in coming to ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Govind Oka Vs. Ganpatrao Bhaurao Kadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR645
Bavdekar, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of among others survey No. 43/11 of Kadapur, Mangaon taluka, Kolaba district. The plaintiff's case was that this land was khoti khasgi land and upon the introduction of the Bombay Khoti Abolition Act, 1949, he became its occupant and he also became entitled to forfeit the tenancy in favour of the defendant as the defendant denied his title and claimed that he was himself the occupant. The defence of the defendant was that the lands in suit were khoti nisbat lands and upon the introduction of the Bombay Khoti Abolition Act, 1949, he became entitled to the occupancy of the lands and he could not be said to have denied the title of the appellant merely because he claimed such occupancy. The facts are not in dispute. It appears that this land was formerly in the possession of a tenant one Jija. She transferred this land to the defendant's father whereupon the plaintiff's uncle who was joi...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Taherali Isaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR650
Shah, J.1. The amount in dispute in this case is only Rs. 170, but it raises questions of some complexity. The plaintiff is a trader in bicycles at Dhulia in the district of West Khandesh. The plaintiff ordered out a quantity of bicycle tyres and tubes from the Dunlop Rubber Co. of Bombay. The Dunlop Rubber Co. consigned the articles ordered by the plaintiff from Bombay in three bundles. The bundles were delivered at the Byeulla Goods Depot of the Central Railway for carriage to Dhulia under railway receipt No. 6513/32 dated May 1, 1952. The consignors were shown in the railway receipt as Dunlop Rubber Co. of India, Ltd., and the goods were consigned to 'Self. The consignment reached the destination on May 13, 1952, and was kept in the warehouse of the railway at the Dhulia railway station. On May 18, 1952, the goods were cheeked at the weekly inspection and the entire consignment was found in order. At the next inspection on May 25, 1952, one out of the three bundles in the consignmen...
Tag this Judgment!Arnold Dominic Rodricks Vs. Sunder Vinayak Navalkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom404
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against a Judgment of Desai J. by which he ordered probate to issue to the petitioners of a will of one Louisa Catherine Rodricks. The will was opposed by the appellant substantially on two grounds. One was that the petition for probate was not in We proper form and that proper court-fees had not been paid, and the other ground was that the will had been obtained by undue influence. With regard to the first ground the position is this.In the petition for probate in Schedule I the two petitioners have shown the value of moveable properties as Rs. 850/-. That is the only property which has been shown in this Schedule. Then they have annexed Schedule III and in that Schedule they have shown the value of immoveable property at Rs. 35,000/-, and with regard to this Schedule there is an averment in para 9 of the affidavit, in support of the petition that this property is the subject-matter of the suit filed by the deceased testatrix in which suit she claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Hari and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom500; 1956CriLJ878
1. This is an application for revision from an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Satara, at Sacara, directing the committal of four accused persons who had been discharged by the learned Magistrate who held the committal proceedings. The reason which the learned Sessions Judge gave as to why he would direct the committal was that the learned trial Magistrate had approached the case from a wrong point of view. He weighed the evidence himself for the purpose of finding out as to whether the accused persons were guilty of the offences with Which they were charged. That is not for the learned Magistrate to do, but what has got to be found out is whether there was evidence upon which the accused ought to be placed before a Court for trial.If the evidence was such that no reasonable Court or jury would convict the accused upon it, then it is not a case which ought to have been committed. But if the evidence was such upon which a view could reasonably be taken that the accused...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »