Mumbai Court November 1958 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.
Budhmal Foujmal Marwadi Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom497; (1959)61BOMLR444; 1959CriLJ1306; ILR1959Bom1108
ORDER1. The applicant has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Third Court, Thana, of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- His appeal from the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana.2. It is common ground that Food Inspector Shimpi of Thana went to the shop of the applicant on 12-7-1956 and purchased 3/8th seer of Begum ghee for Rs. 1/4/- after informing the applicant's servant Fulchand Faujmal, who was on duty in the shop at the time, that he intended to send a sample of the ghee for analysis to the Public Analyst. He then divided the ghee into three samples, one of which was given to Fulchand, one was sent to the public Analyst and the third was kept by the Inspector himself. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample of ghee contained 21.86 per cent foreign fat. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the Administrator of th...
Narayan Ganpati Patil and Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom552; (1959)61BOMLR447; 1959CriLJ1427; ILR1959Bom1251
The Court adjudged that if an evidence of witness, which was given in the committing Court of the magistrate, was brought on record in the Session Court under Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, it was to be treated as if it was a evidence given in the Sessions Court - Therefore, the same would be a testimony within the meaning of Section 157 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and could be corroborated there under. Chainani, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by accused Nos. 8 and 9 against their convictions under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and sentences passed upon them for these offences.2. These accused as well as the other eight accused, who were tried along with them, are residents of Kavathe Piran. Witness Tukaram also belonged to this village. About 7/8 years ago there was a quarrel between Tukaram and father of accused No. 5. Since then there was enmity between Tukaram and the accused. Tukaram was ...
Khatizabai Mohomed Ibrahim Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR719; [1959]37ITR53(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference under the Estate Duty Act raises a question of considerable importance and interest affecting the levy of estate duty on property which may be the subject of a wakf-al-ulad. The settlement, we have to consider, was created by Aishabai, a wealthy Memon lady who was a Hanifa Mohammedan. The facts are simple and we shall only give a broad outline of the relevant facts supplementing it if occasion demands. The deed of wakf, which we shall presently examine, was made on 31st March, 1951. It accords with the requirements of the statute on the subject. There is permanent dedication of property for the benefit of the poor and other purposes recognized by the Musalman law a religious, pious or a charitable purpose of a permanent character. The ultimate benefit to the charity is postponed until the extinction of the descendants of the wakif. There is the usual provision relating to maintenance and support of the settlor during her lifetime and for the maintenance ...
Assudomal M. Raisinghani Vs. Mansingh Chuhermal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR497
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order made by the Small Cause Court, Bombay, dismissing the applicant's suit on the ground that there is no plaint.2. The applicant sought leave to sue as a pauper before the Court of Small Causes. The claim made by him against the opponents is for Rs. 3,000 or so. His application for leave to sue as a pauper was enquired into by the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar allowed the application and granted him leave to sue as a pauper. Thereupon the application was registered as a suit. During the pendency of the matter before the Small Cause Court, the applicant made an application for amendment of the plaint with a view to show that the claim was within time. This application was taken up by the learned Judge on -July 19, 1957, when he passed the following order:-It is obvious that there is no plaint in this case. The leave to sue in forma pauperis has been treated as a plaint and there is no application even till now to amen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›