Mumbai Court February 1960 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 of Bombay Vs. Seikh Kadar Seikh Amir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR497; 1960CriLJ1421
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate Second Class, Khamgaon, ordering that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police in the investigation of a non-cognizable offence under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act should not be made available to the accused who are being prosecuted on charges under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act, should be set aside. The learned Magistrate held that the statements could not be made avilable to the accused because the offence under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act, was a non-cognizable offence and could not be investigated by the police without the persmission of the Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, however, held that this ground stated by the learned Magistrate is not correct because under Section 145 of the Evidence Act a witness can be contradicted by his previous statement made by him to the ...
Marotrao Ganpatrao Jadhav Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR499; 1960CriLJ1425
ORDER(1) This a revision application challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati. Setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate First Class, Amravati, purporting to be under S. 249, Cr. P. C., stopping the proceedings started by the police on a complaint against the applicant under S. 447, I.P.C. for criminal trespass.(2) The learned Magistrate first class, Amravati, issued process and without following the procedure for the trial of summons cases contained in Ss. 241 to 245, Cr.P.C. he passed an order under S. 249, Cr. P. C., holding that he did not think that any case under S. 447, I. P. C., can be said to be made out even prima facie. the order passwed by him is as follows:'The case is perused. the dispute is obviously about possession. The perusal of the documents particularly te receipts show that there was no lease of the land as such, and that the right to take away the grass only was granted. Therefore the mention in the Patwari pa...
State of Bombay Vs. Janardhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR494; 1960CriLJ1569
ORDER(1) The learned Sessions Judge of Nagpur has made this reference under S. 438, Cr. P. C. recommending that the order of Magistrate 1st Class, Saoner, rejecting an applcatin made by the complainant in a case against five accused persons underf Ss. 494 and 494 read with S. 109, I. P. C. to examine additional witnesses to prove that subsequent to the date of the second bigamous marriage of Guna, a child was born to Guna & his second wife Milibai, on the ground that under S. 256, Cr. P. C. after the framing of the charge, the complainant could examine only such of the witnesses as had remained unexamined out of the list of witnesses given by the complainant. the learned Sessions Judge, however, took a different view and relying on Emperor v. Nagindas AIR 1942, held that the words 'any remaining witnesses' in S. 256, Criminal Procedure Code, are nor restricted to witnesses lef out from the list of witnesses given by the complainant and has made this reference to set aside the order of ...
Hambirrao Bhaurao Patil Vs. Balisha Ganpat Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR749
V.S. Desai, J.1. The election of Councillors to the Islampur Municipality was held on November 5, 1957. In that election there were two seats in Ward No. 2 to be elected. One of these scats was a reserved seat and the other was a general seat. The petitioner and opponent No. 3 were candidates for the general seat, while opponent No. 1 and opponent No. 4, who were qualified for the the reserved seat, contested the election for the reserved seat. In the said election opponents Nos. 1 and 3 were declared as duly elected. On November 15, 1957, an election petition was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge of South Satara under Section 22 of the Bombay Municipal Act, challenging the validity of the election. Another election petition was also filed by opponent No. 4, who had also been declared unsuccessful in the election. In the proceedings of these election petitions, by consent of the parties it was decided to have a recounting and scrutiny of the votes and the result declare...
Anand Waste Paper Mart Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1960
Reported in: 196011STC33Tribunal
1. This is a revision application against an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division, (Revision), Bombay, on the28th April, 1959 and the point raised on behalf of the applicants by Mr. Patel is that the applicants were not liable to pay the purchase tax under Section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.The facts which have a bearing upon the question seem to be these.2. The applicants had business in waste paper and rags. The period of assessment with which this case is concerned is from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955. The applicants do not maintain any regular books of account. When the Sales, Tax Officer had to deal with the assessment he held that the applicants were liable to pay the purchase tax under Section 10 (a) of the Act and directed that a sum of Rs. 1,639-14-0 should be recovered from the applicants. This order was questioned by the applicants before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who agreed with the conclusion of the Sale...
Gunavantibai Nanikram and ors. Vs. Official Assignee, High Court Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom24; (1960)62BOMLR601; ILR1960Bom532
1. This is an appeal from an order of the City Civil Court, Bombay, setting aside the award passed by an Arbitrator upon a reference made to him by the parties.2. The facts as alleged by the respondent are as follows: One Nanikram, who is now dead, and his wife Gunavantibai on behalf of herself and her two sons, Pahlajraj, appellant No. 2, and Pribhdas, appellant No. 3, entered into an agreement on 29th June 1957 for referring a dispute between them concerning the partition of certain moveable and immoveable properties to arbitration by one Rughnath on 29th June 1951. The arbitrator made-an award on 5th July 1951 after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them. This award was filed in the City Civil Court immediately thereafter. On 8-10-1951, Nanikram filed a petition in that Court, which was No. 95 of 1951 for setting aside the award on various grounds. His counsel, however, withdrew that petition sometime thereafter with the result that the Court passed a decre...
Indian Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: 196011STC39Tribunal
1. These are two revisional applications preferred by Messrs Indian Vegetable Products Ltd., which raise a common question and the question arises in this way.2. The applicants made certain sales and the sale price included an item called railway freight. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that the price realised by the applicants after deduction of the railway freight constitutes the sale price for the purpose of assessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (unamended), arid the short question is whether the amount of the railway freight is a cash discount within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. Section 2(14) defines the expression "sale price" as meaning the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to trade practice, but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at the time of or before delivery thereof, other than the cost of freight or de...
Shorilal Radhakishan Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: 196011STC36Tribunal
1. This is a revisional application against an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay, on 28th April, 1959 and the short question which arises is whether the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax was right in summarily rejecting the appeal preferred by the applicants before him.2. The matter arises this way. An appeal was filed before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax against an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Licence Circle, Bombay. The order related to a period between 1st April, 1955 and 31st March, 1956. The appeal was admitted and this is not in dispute. It was fixed for hearing on 31st July, 1958. On that date the applicants attended, but it appears that the papers of the case were not available so that the applicants did all that they could do in the circumstances by attending on the date of hearing before the appellate authority. The case then stood adjourned to 10th September, 1958. On this date the applica...
Dr. Dattatraya Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. Sakataprasad Mahanand Upadhyaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR710
S.T. Desai, J.1. This petition raises a question of considerable importance affecting the validity of ballot papers which do not strictly conform in some respects to the requirement of Election Rule 27 contained in the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Conduct of Elections) Rules framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Rule 27(7) is as under:27. Recording of votes.-(1) On receiving the voting paper, the voter shall forthwith proceed to the cubicle provided for the marking of voting papers and shall, without undue delay, record therein his votes by placing a cross or crosses, as the case may be, on the right hand side of the voting paper in the space provided for the purpose, opposite the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he desires to vote, The voter shall then fold the voting paper so as to conceal his votes and proceed to the ballot-box, show the indelible ink mark to the Polling Officer in charge of the ballot-box, deposit the voting paper in- the ba...
Maganbhai Haribhai Patel Vs. Mangaldas Hargovindas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR609
Patel, J.1. This revisional application raises a very interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 22 of the Bombay Agricultural DebtorsRelief Act, 1947, and it arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner is a debtor under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and the opponent is the creditor. The creditor had made an application for adjustment of the debts of the debtor. It appears that the first transaction between the parties had taken place sometime about the year 1938, and from June 1938 to December 31, 1939, the total advances made to the debtor amounted to a sum of Rs. 65. Substantial transactions, involving thousands of rupees, have taken place between the parties after January 1, 1940. The trial Court held that since the first transaction between the parties commenced before January 1, 1940, i.e., in 1938, Section 22(3) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act applied and, therefore, a 30 per cent, cut must be applied to the amount due in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »