Mumbai Court February 1956 Judgments
Gulam Rabbani Gulam Umam Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom511; 1956CriLJ881
Dixit, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused from his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him for an offence under Section 243, Penal Code. Section 243 provides that whoever, fraudulently or with in-tent that fraud may be committed, is in possession of counterfeit coin,' which is a counterfeit of Indian coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that it was counterfeit, shall be punished as stated in the section.2. Now, the evidence in this case consists of the evidence of Sub-Inspector Raje, Panch witnesses Yadav and Punja, of the evidence of an expert and the Panchanama recorded in the case. The pancha-nama shows that the Panchas were called by the Sub-Inspector near the Darga of Sayyad Baba and a search was taken of the house of Gulam Rabbani, who is the accused in this case. It. states that on digging the place, the panchas found one small bundle wrapped with a piece of towel and on untying it the articles mentioned in the panchanama were found.In the articl...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abbasbhai Vajesing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom503
Chainani, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, under Section 307, Criminal P. C. recommending that the verdict of the jury finding accused 1 guilty under Section 19(E), Arms Act, should not be accepted and that this accused should be acquitted of this offence. Accused 1 was also tried on the charge of dacoity. That charge was tried with the aid of assessors.The learned Judge has, however, not passed orderswith regard to this charge, as he felt that boththe charges arose out of the same facts and thedecision with regard to them depended upon theappreciation of the same evidence. in order toavoid two conflicting judgments on the two charges,the learned Judge decided to make this referencewithout recording his judgment on the chargeunder Section 395, Penal Code. 2. As held in 'Mhasku Malu v. Emperor', 1935 Bom. 165 (AIR V 22) (A), in the case of offences, arising substantially out of the same set of facts one triable by a Judge and jury and the other by...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Atmaram Vaikunth Bhende
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom671; 1956CriLJ1195
Chainani, J.1. In this case, the accused has been convicted under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, on three charges and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to four months' rigorous imprisonment, on each charge. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The accused has requested that the substantive sentences passed upon him may be enhanced, but the sentences awarded to him in default of payment of fine may be reduced. He has stated in his appeal memo that if the substantive sentences are enhanced, he will get the advantage of remissions, to which he would be entitled under the Jail Rules.3. We do not think that this would be a suffi-cient ground for reducing the sentences awarded to the accused in default of payment of fine. The accused has also stated that out of Rs. 3,000/-which is said to have been misappropriated, Rs. 2,000/- have been recovered from other parties, who had also received some benefit out of ...
Tag this Judgment!New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: [1956]30ITR338(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The facts which gives rise to this reference are few but they raise a rather interesting question. In the calendar year 1951, which is the previous year of the assessee company which is textile mills the assessee company spent a sum of Rs. 30,557 at Rs. 47 per piece for replacing certain parts in 646 looms out of 864 looms which these mills possessed. This particular part that was replaced was a device which helped in keeping certain tension for the working of the looms. 2. The old parts which were replaced had become completely worn out, they were heavy in weight and were also of a construction which made them not easily workable. Further, these old parts were not available in the market and if an attempt had been made to prepare parts similar in kind or the acquire them, the cost would have been disproportionately high. 3. The assessee company therefore replaced these parts with the parts of a new type which were lighter in weight, could be lifted with the of the foot...
Tag this Judgment!New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom453; (1956)58BOMLR703; ILR1956Bom678
Chagla, C.J. 1. The facts which give rise to this reference are few but they raise a rather interesting question: In the calendar year 1951, which is the previous year of the assessee company which is a textile Mills the assessee company spent a sum of Rs. 30,557/- at Rs. 47/- per piece for replacing certain parts in 646 looms out of 864 looms which these mills possessed. This particular part that was replaced was a device which helped in keeping a certain tension for the working of the looms.The old parts which were replaced had become completely worn out, they were heavy in weight and were also of a construction which made them not easily workable. Further these old parts were not available in the market and if an attempt had been made to prepare parts similar in kind or to acquire them, the cost would have been disproportionately high.The assessee company therefore replaced these parts with the parts of a new type which were lighter in weight, could be lifted with the toe of the foo...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Banaji Vs. Manilal T. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom681
1. This is a misfeasance summonstaken out by the Official Liquidator of the Masters Tobacco Company (India) Ltd. (in Liquidation) (referred to by me as the Company) against Manilal T. Patel, a director of the Company on theground that he was in management of the affairsof the Company, and as such has been guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust in respect of large sums of moneys belonging to the Company,which was a private limited concern. The company at the instance of a creditor was taken into liquidation by an order made by this Court on 16-7-1952. A number of allegations and claims were made by the applicant in the Summons and in the affidavit in support of the same. Certain amendments asked for by the applicant wereallowed by me. Out of the five claims mentioned in the summons and described as (a) (1) to (a) (5) items (a) (2) to (a) (4) were, in the course ofthe hearing before me, abandoned by learned counsel appearing for the applicant. So also was abandoned the first part of t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Raman Kalidas Ponda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom524; 1956CriLJ979
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, whose conviction under Section 408, Penal Code has been set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge. Thana. In 1947 a co-operative society called 'Kainad Vibhag Adiwasi Kamgar Sahakari Sangh Ltd.', was started at Kainad in Dahanu taluka. The Secretary of this society, one Nargolkar, resigned on 29-11-1948. On 10-12-1948 a Khata was opened in the name-of the respondent. The entries made in this Khata show that on that day Rs. 4492-9-6 were paid to the respondent. Some amounts were taken back from the respondent between 10-12-1948 and 9-1-1949 for the expenses of the Society. On 9-1-1949 the Managing Committee of the Society passed a resolution appointing the respondent as its Honorary Secretary. As Secretary of the Society it was his duty to transact all business on behalf of the Society, to organise the sale of the produce of the Society, to collect and realise the sale proceeds, to spend monies on be...
Tag this Judgment!Dhrupatia Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom591; 1956CriLJ989
1. This is an application for revision by a person in regard to whose appearance a warrant has been issued by the First Class Magistrate, Basti, U.P. The warrant appears to have been addressed to the Station Officer, Kotwali without mentioning the name of the particular police station to the station officer of which the warrant was directed. It was then sent by the Magistrate concerned, who was apparently himself authorised to sign for the District Magistrate, to the Chief Presidency Magistrate Bombay. The forwarding letter is addressed to the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay. There seems to be nothing against the appellant's contention that the warrant was handed over to complainant and the complainant went to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, when the Chief Presidency Magistrate endorsed the warrant to the Commissioner of Police for compliance and directly returning to the officer concerned. The Commissioner then endorsed the warrant further to the Inspector of Police, Bombay, who caused...
Tag this Judgment!Pandu Aba Chaugule and ors. Vs. Laxman Dhondi Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom707; (1957)59BOMLR255
Shah, J. 1. Survey No. 47 of Shiwara Taluka, Shahuwadi, in the former Kolhapur State originally belonged to Ramchandra Balvant Shirolkar who will hereafter be referred to as 'the first defendant. The first defendant agreed to sell the land for Rs. 6,300/- to the plaintiffs by agreement, dated 10-12-1945. The plaintiffs paid Rs. 300/- as earnest and agreed to pay the balance within a month from the date of the agreement.On 30-1-1946 the first defendant sold the land for Rs. 6,000/- to defendants 2 and 5. The plaintiffs then filed Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1946 in the Court of Shrimant Himmat Bahadur, F. C. Sub-Judge against defendants 1 to 5 for a decree for specific performance of the agreement, dated 10-12-1945. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that they had offered to pay the balance due by them within the time stipulated but the first defendant refused to accept the same and that the first defendant sold the property to defendants 2 to 5 who had notice of the agreement of sale...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom321; (1956)58BOMLR697; ILR1956Bom648; [1956]29ITR903(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference raises a question as to the right of the assessee firm to be registered under Section 26A, Income Tax Act. 2. The facts are that prior to 1-1-1945 four partners, one of whom was Dwarkadas Khetan, carried on a partnership business. On 1-1-1945 the partnership Was dissolved and Dwarkadas carried on the business as a proprietary concern. Dwarkadas acquired the rights of the selling agency of the Seksaria Cotton Mills on 12-2-1946 and although the instrument which gave him this right was dated 12-2-1946 the right was to commence from 1-1-1946. On 27-3-1946 an instrument of partnership was executed by four persons who agreed to carry on the business of the selling agency in partnership, One was Dwarkadas Khetan. There were two other major partners and the third was a minor Kantilal Keshardeo. The partnership agreement was executed both by the minor himself and also by his natural guardian, his father, on behalf of the minor, and the assessee firm which was con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »