Mumbai Court February 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. Bhairu Sattu Berad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom609; 1956CriLJ1066
Chainani, J.1. These are eight appeals by eight accused, who nave been convicted of the offence of rioting and other offences committed in the course of the riot.2. All the accused are residents of Bairawadi and are related to each other. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 are brothers. One of their sisters is married to accused 4 and another to accused 5. Accused 3 is the brother of accused 5 and accused 8 is their father. These accused reside in the same lane in which witnesses Dattu, Maryappa and Main reside.Dattu suspected that his wife was on illicit intimacy with accused 2. On account of this there were frequent Quarrels between Dattu and his Wife. On Friday the 14th January 1955 Dattu drove his wife out of his house. She then went to reside with her parents. Later on the same day when Dattu and his brother Maryappa were passing by the house of accused 2, accused 2 told Dattu that he should take back his wife and that if he did not do so, he would beat him.The prosecution case is that on...
Misrilal Badrilal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom640; 1956CriLJ1071
Chainani, J. 1. These three applications have been heard together, as the offences, with which the accused persons were charged, were detected by the police at the same time and the evidence in each case is the same.2. The report of the learned Magistrate, which was called for by this Court, shows that he recorded the evidence only in Criminal Case No. 110 of 1955, from which Revision Application No. 1377 of 1955 arises. The evidence recorded in this case was treated as evidence in the other two cases. This procedure is not permissible in Criminal trials. The provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure contemplate a separate trial in each case. In fact a separate trial is the normal procedure, see Section 233, Criminal P. C.The accused in the three cases were also different. The learned Magistrate was therefore wrong in using the evidence recorded in Criminal Case No. 110 of 1955 in the other two cases. It appears from the learned Magistrate's report that the defence lawyer had agreed...
Kantilal Manilal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom381; (1956)58BOMLR689; [1956]26CompCas357(Bom); ILR1956Bom640
Chagla, C.J. 1. The facts giving rise to this reference are rather unusual and because they are unusual the question that we have to answer seems to be a little difficult. The assessees were share-holders of the Navjivan Mills and the Navjivan Mills had invested its profits in the purchase of 5,000 shares of the Bank of India.Oh 25-5-1948 the Bank of India offered to its share-holders one share for every three shares held on payment of Rs. 100/- per share, and the directors of the Navjivan Mills passed a resolution that they would invest the funds of the company in the purchase of 66 shares out of 1666 shares to which they were entitled and the right to the remaining 1600 shares was distributed among the 800 share-holders of the company in the proportion of right to two shares of the Bank for one ordinary share held in the company.The assessees between them held 570 shares of these Mills, and the assessees requested the Mills to renounce their right with regard to 1,140 shares to which...
Steelage Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1956
Reported in: 19567STC493Tribunal
1. The applicants sold a motor car on which the sales tax has been levied. This is in accordance with our own decision in the case of Messrs Login Dawlat Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bombay 3 S.T.D. 78.The motor car in this case was purchased for the use of the managing director of the firm, and the cost of its purchase and the proceeds of its sale were debited and credited in the firm's books of account. The car was actually shown as a part of the assets of the company, and it was sold at a profit. Shri Dalai for the applicants relies on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Mohanlal Ramkisan [1955] 6 S.T.C. 136, in which it did not appear that the articles in question were regarded as assets of the dealer. It is stated in the judgment that the goods sold were used as second-hand goods forming the assessee's private property and had no connection with any of the business, for which the dealers were registered or liable to be regis...
Sista'S Limited Vs. the State Of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1956
Reported in: 19567STC343Tribunal
1. The appellants are an advertising firm. They receive orders for the advertisements of their clients in newspapers and other journals, and where a picture is to appear in the publication of any advertisement they have to entrust the work of making the blocks to a different firm, to which they give orders for the blocks required, giving particulars of their kind and size and also giving the names of the clients. They leave the details of the bill to be submitted blank, which, after being filled in by the block-making firm, is returned to the appellants, wherein the charge is made or shown ."less discount 15 percent." They receive a similar discount from the newspaper or other journals and recover the amounts of the bills, without showing the discounts received by them, from their clients, In this case we are concerned with the subject of the blocks which are got prepared and utilised by the newspapers or other journals concerned. The view taken by the authorities below is that the bl...
Bal Keshav Thakrey Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bombay and State of Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom490; (1956)58BOMLR473; 1956CriLJ875; ILR1956Bom704
Chagla, C.J.1. The Preventive Detention Act confers wide and drastic powers upon the State Government and also upon certain officers mentioned in that Act. It constitutes a serious infringement upon, civil liberty and to the extent that it constitutes that infringement, it must be strictly construed, and the Court must always be vigilant to see that every safeguard provided in that Act has been complied with.The Government Pleader asked us to bear in mind the critical times we have recently been passing through. In our opinion it is very essential that a Court of law should, as far as possible, keep away from the heat and dust of political battle and make an objective and detached appraisal of the record before it. That does not mean that the Court should not be anxious to see that the security of the State is maintained.Nor does it mean that the Court should not see to it that the Preventive Detention Act, which is intended for the security of the State, is not an effective Instrument...
Mohanlal Brijlal Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1956
Reported in: 19567STC295Tribunal
1. The period of assessment in this case is from 1st April, 1949, to 31st October, 1952. The applicants sell milk, curds, sweets etc. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the tax to Rs. 13,433-12-0 and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,301-3-6 under Sub-section (3A) of Section 12 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. The applicants appealed on the question of the penalty levied under Sub-section (3A) of Section 12, and they did not dispute the assessment. The Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal observing, "It must be observed that the penalty under Section 12 (3A) is leviable on the tax payable under the Act which need not necessarily be the tax payable according to the dealer's returns. This has happened in the case of the present appellant". There was a revision application against the order of the Assistant Collector. The applicants contended that they could be asked to pay the difference in the amount of tax payable and paid and that they could not be asked to pay any penalty thereon particul...
Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas Vs. Mahendrakumar Ambalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom481; (1956)58BOMLR465; ILR1956Bom776
Chagla, C.J.1. A question relating to jurisdiction arising under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, has been referred to this Full Bench. The scheme of that Act has often been considered by this Court and it is dear that under Section 28 special jurisdiction to try suits arising under the Act was conferred upon ordinary Courts of the land which have been set up under the Civil Courts Act.The Courts upon which special jurisdiction was conferred are enumerated in Section 28. Under Section 28(1)(a) in Greater Bombay the Court is the Court of Small Causes and under Clause (aa) in any area for which a Court of Small Causes is established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, such Court. Therefore, in the State of Bombay we have Courts of Small Causes in Poona and Ahmedabad and this provision would apply to those- Courts.Then under Section 28(1)(b) elsewhere the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, having jurisdiction in the area in which th...
State Vs. Hiralal Surajkaran Sarada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom473; (1956)58BOMLR481; 1956CriLJ872; ILR1956Bom786; (1956)IILLJ299Bom
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (79 of 1948). The respondent who has a shop styled as Radhakisan Hiralal Shop at Kopargaon, was charged with having committed offences under Sections 18(1) & 8 read with Section 52 of the Act. The prosecution case against him was that he had contravened the provisions of the first two sections and thereby rendered himself liable to punishment under the last section.The learned Magistrate held that the respondent had not rendered himself liable to be punished under Section 53 because he could legitimately claim exemption from the operation of Section 18(1) and in fact he had not contravened Section 8. His finding that no contravention under Section 8 had been proved is a finding of fact. But his conclusion that the respondent was exempted from the compliance of the provisions of Section 18(1) by virtue of the provisions of entry No. 17, Schedule II, is a decision on a ...
Colgate-palmolive (India) Ltd., Bombay Vs. their Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ546Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(2)AWARD1. This is a reference made by the Government of Bombay under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). The reference concerns a dispute raised by the Colgate-Palmolive Employees' Union, Bombay, on behalf of the employees of the said company regarding bonus for the year 1954. The union claimed bonus equivalent to six months' basic salary of the employees concerned and from that amount, it stated, two months' bonus already paid as annual gratification under the company's notice, dated 21 December, 1954, might be deducted. The company was not willing to pay anything in addition to what it had already paid. At the stage of conciliation both the parties agreed to submit the dispute for adjudication. Government, therefore, made the present reference.2. Colgate-Palmolive (India), Ltd., is a private limited concern carrying on business in India in soap and other toilet requisites. The company has its head ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »