Mumbai Court October 1957 Judgments
Malan and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR428; 1960CriLJ1189
ORDER(1) This is an application under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revising the order, dated the 4th June 1957, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1957, by which he confirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 494, read with Section 114 I. P. C., and the sentence on each of them for one day's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one day more.(2) The prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 had gone through the ceremony of marriage with one Krishnabai during the life-time of his wife Bayadabai. The accused No. 14 was alleged to be the priest who officiated at the performance of the aforesaid marriage. Accused No. 1 was charged under Section 494 I. P. C. and was convicted for the offence under Sec. 494. Accused No. 14 as convicted for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 I. P. C. I am not concerned with the convictions r...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikumar Balasa JaIn Vs. Suwalal Chunnilal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom413
ORDER1. This is an application for revision of the order of the Additional District Judge, Washim, passed upon an election petition filed by the non-applicant No. 1 Suwalal, challenging the election of the application Jaikumar to the Janapad Sabha, Washim.2. The learned Judge held that the acts of the applicant in using loud-speakers and in conveying voters to the polling booths constituted corrupt and illegal practices, that the result of the election was adversely affected by reason of these practices and that the election was therefore void.3. The only point which is argued before mo by Shri Deshpande, who appears for the applicant, is that the acts alleged to have been committed by the applicant do not fall within the definition of corrupt and illegal practices contained in the rules framed under Section 182(2)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948. The expression 'corrupt and illegal practices' has been defined thus in Rule 1 of the rules framed under S...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Balmukunda Salampuriya Vs. Vinaya Kumar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR462
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 20A(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, of an order of the. First Civil Judge, Class I, Akola dismissing the applicants' election petition challenging the election of the non-applicant.2. Shri Phadke who appears for the applicants contends that the non-applicant induced one of the candidates, Shri Hussain, for the election to the presidentship of the Akola municipal committee to withdraw his candidature upon an assurance that he would appoint Hussain as vice-president in case the non applicant was elected as president. Shri Phadke further says that an inducement of this kind amounts to bribery and falls within the definition of corrupt and illegal practices as contained in the rules framed under Section 176(2)(i) of that Act. He points out that the lower Court has held that making an offer of the kind aliened cannot be regarded as bribery at all, and would, therefore, not fall within the afore...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Vaidya Vs. S.G. Barve, Sales Tax Office, Sholapur District
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: [1958]9STC128(Bom)
Dixit, J. 1. The petitioner in this case carries on business at Akluj in the Sholapur district as the sole proprietor under the name and style of 'Shrikant Aushadhi Bhandar' since prior to the 1st April, 1946. The respondent to the petition is the Sales Tax Office, Sholapur, district at Pandharpur, who has jurisdiction over dealers carrying on business within the Sholapur district. The period, which is material, is a period between the 1st of October, 1946, and the 31st of March, 1954. In respect of this period, the respondent served various notices upon the petitioner. In that way, a notice was issued against the petitioner in respect of the period between the 1st of October, 1946, and the 31st of October, 1952; another notice in respect of the period between the 1st of November, 1952, and the 31st of March, 1953, was issued against the petitioner; and a third notice was issued against the petitioner in respect of the period between the 1st of April, 1953, and the 31st of March, 1954....
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Sonu Vs. New India Rayon Mill Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR539
Dixit, J.1. This Special Civil Application raises a short and interesting question under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts of the ease, in which the question arises, are briefly these.2. The petitioner was in service of the respondent company from January 1945 to the date of his retrenchment, which occurred on October 15, 1954. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent company is a factory and is responsible for the payment of wages to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. While the petitioner was in service of the respondent company, the petitioner was given a notice on August 31, 1954, purporting to be a notice under Section 25F of the Act, informing the petitioner that the respondent company desired to close the department in which the petitioner was working; and that the services of the petitioner were proposed to be terminated with effect from Oc...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Surajmal Vs. Nathu Raoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom86; (1958)60BOMLR457
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's application for revision of an order dated 17-1-1957 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Akola, ecpowered under Section 18 of the C.P. Courts Act, dismissing his suit as barred by time.2. The applicant filed a plaint in which he claimed a decree for Rs. 600/- but paid only a court-fee stamp of Rs. 1/-. He made an application along with the plaint for extension of time to pay the deficit court-fee stating therein that as court-fee stamps of the appropriate value were not available on that date and as that was the last day of limitation for the filing of the plaint he was paying a court-fee of Rs. 1/- and wanted an extension of time to pay the deficit. The Court granted him time till 23-6-1956. The applicant paid deficit court-fee on 21-6-1956. Later the defendant made an application for review of the order in which he challenged the correctness of the averment made by the applicant to the effect that court-fee stamps of appropriate denomination were not availa...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ramchandra Bhagwat Vs. Markandya Tukaram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom516
1. This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The appellant had executed a surely bond in favour of the Court agreeing to pay Rs. 2,400/- to the decree-holder in case the judgment-debtor, who is respondent No. 2 here, failed to prefer an appeal from the decree of the trial Court and obtain a stay order from that Court. This was on 3-12-1952. The respondent No. 2 did not prefer an appeal nor did he bring any stay order. The decree-holder, i.e., the respondent No. 1, then sought to execute the decree. In the execution proceedings the parties arrived at a compromise the terms of which are as follows:'(a) The J.D. paid the amount Rs. 200/- on 6-4-1953. The J.D. shall pay Rs. 600/- by 18-4-1953. The J.D. shall pay Rs. 800/- by 15-4-1954. The balance of instalment by 15-4-1955. (b) The J.Ds. shall furnish solvent security within 15 days in the extent of the decretal claim interest and costs. (c) In default of any of the terms mentioned above, the scheme of installments shall (si...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Shankarrao Vs. Rangoobai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom519; (1958)60BOMLR459
1. This is an application for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of the judgment of the Civil Judge, Amraoti, empowered under Section 18 of the C.P. Courts Act, dismissing the applicants suit for the recovery of Rs. 167-8-0.2. It is common ground that the applicant ploughed 7 acres and 28 gunthas of land belonging to the non-applicant No. 1 with his tractor. According to the applicant the non-applicant No. 1 According to the applicant the non-applicant No. 1 and other cultivators of mauza Belora, tahsil Morshi, applied to the Development Officer, Amraoti, for getting their fields ploughed by a tractor and agreed to defray the cots of the work done. Further according to him, he commenced the work of ploughing in the presence of the non-applicant No. 1 and that the later acknowledged hat he had done the work satisfactorily. He claims his charges at the rate of Rs. 22/- per acre. According to the non-applicant No. 1, her agreement was with the officers of t...
Tag this Judgment!Dada Narayan Thakre Vs. Jaichand Nagorao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom278; (1958)60BOMLR380; ILR1958Bom633
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from an order arising out of execution proceedings. 2. The decree-holder Yeshwantrao (respondent No. 2) obtained a decree for money against the appellant. In execution of that decree occupancy field No. 129 of mouza Chichala, tahsil Wardha, was attached and was eventually sold; the auction-purchaser thereof being respondent No. 1. The auction sale, it may be mentioned, was held on 17-3-1952 and was confirmed on 12-4-1952. On 24-6-1952, the appellant made an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the sale was effected without service of notice on him under Order 21, Rule 66 (2) of the Code. The appellant also stated in that application that though notice of sale was ordered to issue to him by the Court it was actually not served on him though the process-server had made a false report to the effect that the appellant had refused to accept the service. The executing Court upheld the appellant's contention and s...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Shirish V. Pai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom6; (1958)60BOMLR822; 1959CriLJ30; ILR1958Bom847
Vyas, J. 1. These applications raise an interesting point of law and the point raised is : Is the Coroner appointed under the Coroners Act, 1871 (Act No. IV of 1871), a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act, 1952 (Act No. 32 1952)? The circumstances under which this point has arisen may be briefly stated. 2. Certain articles and reports, containing allegations regarding the cause of death of Anant Vishwanath Golatkar were printed and published by Shrimati Shirish v. Pai and Shrimati Malti Tendulkar in the issues dated 27-1-1957 of 'Navyug' and 'Har Har Mahadev' respectively. Certain writings, a poem and a speech of Shri P.K. Atre were printed and published in the issues, under various dates, of 'Maratha' and 'Navyug'. The State of Bombay contends that by the printing and publishing of the above material and by the making of the above speech the opponents Shrimati Shirish v. Pai, Shrimati Malti Tendulkar and P.K. Atre committed contempt of Court. 3. On 20-1-1957 at about...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »