Mumbai Court February 1960 Judgments
Ganpat Sambhaji Patil Vs. Extra Assistant Judge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR884
V.S. Desai, J.1. The two petitioners are persons whose election to the Municipality of Islampur has been declared invalid on an application made by respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the District Municipal Act. The ground on which the election of the petitioners has been held to be invalid is under Section 15(7)(ea) in that they had failed to pay arrears due by them to the municipality within three months after a special notice in that behalf had been served upon them.2. The two petitioners were members of the municipality in the years 1952-53 also and during that year they and five other members of the municipality had been responsible for making unauthorised appointments of octroi clerks and peons. Under Section 42 of the District Municipal Act, these seven persons as Councillors were liable for the misapplication of the funds of the municipality since the said misapplication had happened through or been facilitated by gross neglect of their duty as Councillors. An objection with r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Premdas Sukritdas Gadhewas Koshti and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR613; 1960CriLJ1426
(1) This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, recommending tat proceedings under S. 476, Cr. P. C. pending before Magistrate, Third Class, Nagpur, upon an application made by one Jivtya requesting that Court to file a complaint against two persons Premdas and Ramchandra under Ss. 193 and 211, I. P. C. be quashed. The learned Magistrate overruled the objection taken before him that no proceedings under S. 476, Cr. P. C. could be taken because the Magistrae who tried the case had not taken proceedings under S. 479A, Cr. P. C. (which will hereinatter be referred to as the Code). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, recommends that proceedings under S. 476 should be quashed as he is of the opinion that as the Magistrate had not taken any action under S. 479A of the Code, it was not open to take proceedings under S. 476 of the Code. The learned Judge has relied on Jai Bir Singh v. Malkhan Singh, : AIR1958All364 ; Narajappa v. Chikkaramiah AIR 1959 ys 117; Mannaal v. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Motiram Bajirao and ors. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR514; 1960CriLJ1571
ORDER(1) This is a Criminal Revision Application by three pplicants Motiram, Dewaji and lahanu, whose convictions under S. 147, Indian Penal Code, by the Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, in Criminal Case No. 70 of 1958, were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1959. At the trial, originally there were 7 accused, but in appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the convictions of appellants nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7, and confirmed the convictions of appellants 3, 5 and 6 under S. 147, Indian Penal Code, and these three persons have now come in revision. (2) The only point urged in revision is that if out of an unlawful assembly consisting of 7 named persons 4 are acquitted the ther three cannot be convicted of rioting as members of an unlawful assembly. A conviction for being a member of an unlawful assembly or for rioting as a member of an unlawful assembly requires the proof that there was an unlawful assembly consisting of at least five persons. If this ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Motiram Vs. Motiram Ragho
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR484
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. On April 1, 1956, respondent No. 1, to whom I will hereafter refer as the respondent, made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon, under Section 19(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act. In his application, he contended that he had cultivated the land in dispute in 1955-56 and that he had, therefore, acquired the rights of a protected lessee under the above Act. He also alleged that he had been dispossessed by the second, third and the fourth petitioners. The land belongs to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the managing agent of petitioner No. 1 and looks after the land. Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 are said to be lessees from the first two petitioners. The petitioners denied that the land had been leased to the respondent. Their case was that they even did not know him. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the application made by the respondent. On appeal, the Additional Deputy Collector reversed the order made by the Sub-Division...
Tag this Judgment!Watanmal Boolchand Vs. N.V. Stoomvaart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR702
Mody, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded.] Twenty issues have been raised on behalf of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and seven on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Desai, the learned Counsel for defendants Nos. 4 and 5, applied that issues Nos. 1 to 7 of his clients be tried as preliminary issues and Mr. Nariman, the learned Counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 2, applied that issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of his clients be tried as preliminary issues. Mr. Jhavery, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, opposed that application. Mr. Desai thereupon contended that issues Nos. 1. to 7 of his clients were issues of law and that, in view of the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court was bound to try, i.e., this Court had no other option but to try the said issues as preliminary issues. Mr. Nariman advanced similar contentions as regards issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 raised on behalf of his clients. Mr. Jhavery, however, contended that unde...
Tag this Judgment!Chandbeg Muradbeg and ors. Vs. Raje Madhaorao Devidasrao Jahagirdar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom146; (1960)62BOMLR502; ILR1960Bom525
Chainani, C.J. 1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are: (1) Whether having regard to the facts in these appeals the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, (Bombay Act No. XCIX of 1958), apply? and (2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals in view of the questions raised under the Act or they lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities 2. These questions have been formulated in very wide terms. Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, (Bombay Act No. XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) provides that in the case of any proceeding under any of the provisions of the enactments repealed by this Act, pending before a civil Court on the date of the commencement of the Act, the provisions of section 125 of the Act shall apply. Sub-section (1) of section 125 requires a civi...
Tag this Judgment!Anjanabai Yeshwant Rao Vs. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom154; (1961)63BOMLR98; 1961CriLJ637; ILR1961Bom135
Chainani, C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench is: 'Can the delay on the part of the applicant in making an application under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal be condoned under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on proper case having been made out?'Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides as follows: 'Any appeal or application for a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period'. 2. On behalf of the respondents, it has been urged that this section does not apply, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act. Sub-sect...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Chindhaji and ors. Vs. Tulsiram Baliram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom197; (1961)63BOMLR116; ILR1961Bom538
Chainani, C.J.(1) The question referred to the Full Bench is:'Whether the expression 'effected consolidation in the land' used in sub-section (2) of S. 184 of the Berar Land Revenue Code refers to consolidation of portions of the same survey number or two sub-divisions of the same survey number; or it refers to consolidation of two areas of land physically contiguous, irrespective of whether they form parts of the same survey number or not?'(2) In order to answer this question, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Bearar Land Revenue Code, which conferred the right pre-emption in certain cases. Sub-section (1) of S. 174 provides that the rights conferred by this Chapter upon the occupants in a survey number in respect of transfer of interests in that survey number shall be deemed to be rights of pre-emption and they shall be enforceable only in the manner and to the extent provided in this Chapter. Sub-section (3) provides that such rights ...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Rolling Mills (Private), Ltd. Vs. Meher M.R. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ667Bom
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question which falls to be determined in this appeal is, whether it is open to the industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to award lay-off compensation to workmen employed in an 'industrial establishment' to which S. 25C of the Act does not apply. 2. The two appellants are respectively a private limited company carrying on the business of a steel rolling mill and the managing director of that company. At all material times that appellants employed on an average per working day less than fifty workmen. The workmen employed by the appellants raised an industrial dispute claiming that the appellants 'shall give regular work of average of 25 days in a month throughout the year of pay wages and allowances for the minimum of 25 days in a month with effect from 1956, ' and without prejudice to that demand they also made a claim that, 'with effect from 1 April 1956 in case regular work cannot be provided and if the workers are laid off or had to suffer...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Ramchand Govindji and Co. and ors. Vs. G.G. Nerkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Bom183; (1960)62BOMLR475; ILR1961Bom282; [1960]11STC837(Bom)
Chainani, C.J.(1) The two questions referred to the Full Bench are:'(1) Whether in view of the amendment introduced in section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Bearar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947) by section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Validating Provinces and Amendment) Act, 1959, the Full Bench decision in Bissesar House v. State of Bombay, : AIR1959Bom130 , still holds good? (2) Whether a notice under section 11(2) of the said Act can be issued more than three years after expiry of the period for which it is proposed to make the assessment?'(2) In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to refer to certain sections of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Section 4 of the Act is charging section and it provides that every dealer whose dealer whose turnover exceeds the limits specified in sub-section (5) shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act on all sales effected aft...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »