Mumbai Court January 1956 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.
Michael Anthony Rodrigues Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom501
1. This is a petition impugning a certain Order passed by the Under-Secretary to Government under the Foreigners Act (31 of 1946) calling upon the Petitioner to leave India within 24 hours of the service of that order upon him. The Order is made under the Foreigners Act, and 'foreigner' is defined by Section 2, which says that a 'foreigner' means a person who is not a natural-born subject of India and has not been granted a certificate of naturalization as a subject of India under any law for the time being in force. It is not denied that the Petitioner was born in Goa.2. In his petition, however, he says that he came from Goa as far as 1927 with the intention of settling down in India permanently. If that were right he was rather a precautious child having decided to change his domicile at the age of ten. But Mr. Madon concedes that this sentence is unhappily drafted and it does not mean what' it says.According to the Petitioner he started his schooling here and he has produced a scho...
Ratilal Jasraj Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom385; 1956CriLJ712
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an application for transfer of the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ahmednagar, to a competent Court in any other district. The proceedings in question have been instituted against the petitioner under Section 110(e) and (f), Criminal P.C. and the case in which these proceedings are pending before the learned Additional District Magistrate at Nagar is Criminal Case No. 36 of 1955 on his file.The petitioner's grievance is that the course which the proceedings have taken before the learned Additional District Magistrate and the attitude adopted by him have created a reasonable apprehension In his mind that he will not get a fair trial before the learned Magistrate.2. In dealing with transfer applications, it is essential for the petitioner to satisfy us that he entertains an apprehension that his case would not be fairly tried by the learned trial Magistrate land that his apprehension is such as c...
Balchand Ishwarlal Vs. East India Cotton Association Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom476
Coyajee, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff who has filed this suit against the East India Cotton Association and the defendants who are some of them members of the Board of the Association and others. The suit arises in the following circumstances which arose in the forward contracts market in cotton under the aegis of the East India Cotton Association. The East India Cotton. Association under its Bylaws and Rules regulates the conduct of the merchants dealing through the 'Association by making Rules from time to time and enforcing certain Rules under the By-Laws and Rules referred to by me above.It is stated by the plaintiff that under By-Law 52 of the By-Laws of the Association it is provided that if in the opinion of the Board an emergency has arisen or exists, the Board would have the power by resolution to prohibit from a date to be fixed in that behalf trading under hedge contracts in cotton at the rate or rates above, the maximum or below the minimum for...
Sayed Kassam Ibrahim Vs. M.M. Chudasama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom545
Chagla, C. J. 1. The petitioner was a constable in the Bombay City Police Force and by this petition he challenges an order of dismissal passed against him by the Commissioner of Police on 23-6-1955.2. This case has had rather a chequered career and various attempts have been made by the Police authorities to dismiss the petitioner from service and so far the petitioner seems to have succeeded on one technical ground or another. It appears that on 12-4-1950 Sub-Inspector Khanse obtained an order from a Presidency Magistrate to investigate a case of corruption. The investigation was completed by Sub-Inspector Khanse on 27-10-1950 and he made a report to Inspector Raje.On 31-10-1950 Inspector Raje reported to Superintendent Subhan, and on 15-11-1950 Superintendent Subhan made a report to the Commissioner of Police. On 16-11-1950 Assistant Commissioner, Deshpande made a report to the Commissioner of Police recommending the suspension of the petitioner who was involved in the Investigation...
Vishwanath Vithoba Vs. Genu Kisan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom555
Chainani, J. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2. The parties are related to each other as shown In the following pedigree: RAMJI GHOLAP | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Gyanuji Vithoba Bhausaheb Maruti | | | | ----------- | Kashinat ----------- | | | | | Kisan Kondiba ---------------------------- Pandurang Sadashiv | | | |Genu(plff.) Vishwauath(D.1) Mulidhar(D.2) Pundalik(D.3)The plaintiff's grand-father Gyanuji died in 1897. The date of the death of plaintiff's father Kisan is not known, but he died in or about 1923. The branches of Gyanuji's two brothers, Bhausaheb and Maruti are now extinct.(2) The dispute between the plaintiff and thedefendants relates to three houses, bearing C. S, Nos. 396, 386 and 576. According to the plaintiff their old C. T. S. Nos. are 663, 468 and 520 respectively. The plaintiff's case is that these three houses were purchased by his grand-father, Gyanuji, on 30-9-1889, 17-4-1893 and 17-8-1895 respectively. Along wit...
income-tax Officer, Ward C, Sangli and anr. Vs. Chandanbai Balaram Dos ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom91; (1956)58BOMLR564; ILR1956Bom743
ORDER1. These two Revision Applications raise common questions. Decrees for money were passed against one Bharamappa Jinappa Shirguppe in two suits. The decree-holder in one suit was Sushilabai wife of Annappa Mithare and the decree-holder in the other was Chandanbai wife of Balaram Doshi. Chandanbai filed Darkhast No. 201/54 for execution of her decree and Sushilabai filed Darkhast No 100/54 for execution of her decree. In Darkhast No. 201/54 filed by Chandanbai moveable property belonging to Bharamappa was attached. The property was sold on 29th November 1954. Sushilabai in her Darkhast No. 100/54 got attached and sold some immovable property of Bharamappa. The immoveable property was sold on 22nd October 1954, and the sale was confirmed on 27th November 1954. The total amount realised by sale of the moveable and immoveable property in the two Darkhasts exceeded Rs. 3,000. Bharamappa was liable to pay to the income-tax department an aggregate amount of Rs. 26,586-5-0 as tax and penal...
Allemeeya Daud Saheb Dhanse Vs. Hari Mahadeo Wagle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR641
Bavdekar, J.1. The respondent in the present appeal had obtained a decree for money payable by nine instalments against the appellant. The decree provided that if there was a default in paying two instalments, the respondent was entitled to execute the decree for the whole amount. The instalments for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 were not paid, whereupon on December 9, 1938, the respondent made an application for execution of the whole amount due upon the decree relying upon the default clause. That darkhast was disposed of on September 11, 1939, and the next darkhast which was filed by the respondent on July 8, 1940, was disposed of on August 20, 1940. Within three years from that date the appellant paid Rs. 5 out of Court and endorsed the decree under his own signature in respect of the payment of that amount and consequently July 30, 1943, became a fresh point of limitation for the purpose of filing a fresh darkhast. In the meanwhile, however, inasmuch as the Bombay Agricultural Deb...
Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1956
Reported in: 19567STC260Tribunal
1. These applications concern the periods 1st June, 1947, to 31st March, 1949, and 1st April, 1949, to 31st October, 1952. The applicants have their office in Nagpur and were registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. They have been carrying on their business of selling or supplying goods in the Province of Bombay, and they have been, therefore, held to be dealers within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and assessed to the sales tax with penalties under Sub-section (5) of Section 11 and Sub-section (3A) of Section 12 of the Act. No arguments have been addressed to us as to the penalties imposed. Shri Thakkar for the applicants has contended that the applicants are not dealers within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, that they should have been assessed under section IIA and not under Section 11(5), and that some goods which were sold by them outside the State of Bombay have been wrongly included in the taxable turnover. There is an agent of the applicants and...
Addy Pharmacy Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1956
Reported in: 19567STC340Tribunal
1. These revision applications are concerned with three periods of assessment, viz. 1st July, 1947, to 2nd March, 1948 ; 3rd March, 1948, to 13th April, 1949, and 14th April, 1949, to 6th November, 1949.During the first period the transactions of the applicants' firm were being conducted by one Gulbai. She transferred the said firm to one Ratanshi Sojpal on 3rd March, 1948. During the second period, Ratanshi Sojpal did not get himself registered as a dealer, and therefore obtained no registration certificate. On 6th November, 1949, the business was transferred to the present partners one of whom, M.V.Kothari, has signed the three revision applications. Gulbai furnished no returns nor paid any tax. During the second period nothing was done by Ratanshi Sojpal by way of filing any returns or payment of tax. On 2nd December, 1949, notices in Forms XIV and XXIII were sent by ordinary post to the applicants' firm, Addy Pharmacy, at Khodadad Circle, Dadar, Bombay, calling upon the assessees ...
State Vs. Abdulgafar Abdulrehman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom420; 1956CriLJ722
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class, 9th Court, Ahmedabad, acquitting the respondents of the offence under Sections 4 and 5, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act.On behalf of the State we have been told that the State is not anxious to secure the conviction of the respondents as much as to get the point of law decided; and, according to the appellant, the point of law is of some importance because the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate as to the effect of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7, Prevention of Gambling Act is wholly erroneous and indeed is not supported by any decisions of this Court.The point, in substance, is in regard to the artificial presumption which is allowed to be rais-ed statutorily under Section 7 of Bombay Act 4 of 1887. The learned Magistrate has taken the view that, though a warrant had been issued under Section 6 of the Act, the presumption under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »