Mumbai Court August 1957 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.
The State Vs. Chinubhai Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom257; (1957)59BOMLR1155; 1958CriLJ858; ILR1958Bom226
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal from acquittal and it is filed by the State from ,a judgment or the learned Joint Civil Judge, J. D. and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach, acquitting the respondent who was charged with having committed offences under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 36 of the Factories Act (Act LXIII of 1948) read with Section 92 of the said Act.2. The appeal raises a question under the Factories Act and the question is one of construction of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 36 of the Act. This question arises upon the following facts: The respondent is the occupier of the Gopal Mills Company Ltd., Broach, a factory defined by Section 2, Sub-sections (m), Clause (i) of the Act. On 5-7-1955 at 9-30 O'clock in the morning when the factory was working, an accident occurred in the valve pit of the purification plant installed in the factory. As a result of the accident, five workers died. The names of the workers were Chhotalal Nathubhai, Fakirji Dhanjisha, Melia...
Abdullabhai Kasamali Bohara Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1163
Kotval, J. 1. The order in this criminal revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revisions Nos. 55, 56 and 57, all of 1957. These revisions are at the instance of one and the same person, one Abdulla Bhai, who was charged for various offences under Sections 73, 74(i)(c), 69 and 62 of the Indian Mines Act, (No. XXXV of 1952), and convicted in four separate cases summarily tried by the Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara.2. In each of these cases, the complaint, as it was originally filed, was against Abdul Hussain M. Allabaxji of Nagpur along with two other persons named as accused in the case One of them was a contractor who has been acquitted on the ground that he had nothing to do with the management of the mine. The other, n servant of the applicant Abdulla Bhai, was convicted but has not moved this Court in revision.3. The origrinal complaint filed on August 24, 1955, was against Abdul Hussain M. Allabaxji of Nagpur, but it was found that there was no individual of that n...
The Berar Oil Industries Vs. N.H. Majumdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1189
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for. quashing the order of the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, declaring that the termination of the services of the employees in the oil mill section, whose services were terminated by the petitioner in pursuance of its notice dated June 23, 19;56, on the ground of want of oilseed, was an illegal change, and further declaring that the imposition of a condition on the employees by the petitioner to the effect that the services of those employees who may bere-employed after stocks are available would be terminated after the completion of the work of crushing the available seed as stated in the notice dated July 24, 1956, was also an illegal change.2. The relevant facts are briefly these: The petitioner carries on business at Akola and, among other things, is engaged mainly in the manufacture of vegetable ghee and allied products. There are several sections in its undertaking at Akola one of which is engage...
The Borough Municipality of Karad Vs. the Collector of North Satara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1133
Dixit, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and it arises under the following circumstances.2. The applicant in this case is the Borough Municipality of Karad. The Borough Municipality appears to have made certain encroachments upon a street land. In consequence of these encroachments, the Prant Officer, Satara Division, made two orders. By his first order dated January 1, 1953, he levied non-agricultural assessment in respect of 460 encroachments for a period between 1923 and 1951. By his second order dated March 8, 1954, he directed the recovery of non-agricultural assessment in respect of 965 encroachments from the year 1952-53. It seems that these 965 encroachments included 460 encroachments to which the first order relates.3. The applicant-municipality then preferred an appeal before the Collector of Satara, who modified the Prant Officer's first order, holding that non-agricultural assessment could not be levied restrospectively but it could be recovered ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›