Mumbai Court November 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.
State Vs. Ishwarlal Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR146
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, acquitting the respondent Ishwarlal Chhaganlal who was charged with having committed offences under Section 4, Sub-section (1), Clauses (a) and (b) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925. It raises a short question under the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925, and the question is as to the construction of the words 'purchased or obtained as agent' in Clause (a) of the proviso1 to Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. Do these words mean 'purchased as agent or obtained as agent' or do the words 'as agent' govern only the word 'obtained' and not the word 'purchased'? The learned Sessions Judge, who has ordered the acquittal of the respondent, has held that the word 'purchased' has no relation to the words 'as agent' and is not to be read in conjunction with those words. On the other hand, the State contends that the words 'as agent' are referable not only to ...
Kurban Hussen SajauddIn Vs. Ratikant Nilkant and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Bom401; (1957)59BOMLR158; ILR1957Bom314
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The short question of law which arises for our decision in the present civil revision application is whether the word 'may' used in Section 12 Sub-section (3) (a), of Bombay Act No. 57 of 1947 means 'shall', or whether it is used in its usual enabling sense and it gives discretion to the Court either to sense and it gives discretion to the Court either to pass a decree for eviction or not. This question arises in this way. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises in suit. Notice was given by the opponents to the petitioner on 3-5-1954 calling upon him to vacate the premises on two grounds. It was alleged that the petitioner was in arrears as to rent and that the opponents wanted the premises bona fide for their own personal use. The petitioner denied the opponents case that the opponents needed the premises bona fide for their personal use; it was urged on his behalf that he was ready and willing to pay the rent. The petitioner also disputed the validity of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›