Mumbai Court December 1961 Judgments
Shriprakash Shivram Potdar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom252; (1962)64BOMLR339; ILR1962Bom409
Chandrachud, J.(1) This is one of those cases in which a verdict would shock the conscience of the public. A child aged 2 fell down from an apartment on the 4th floor or a building situated on Netaji Subash Road. The tragedy occurred on the 14th of October, 1961, at about 10-30 a. m. When the father had gone to his office, the maid was in the bathroom and the mother was reading a news-paper in the drawing room. Presumably, the child crawled to the balcony, got on a chair, and lost her balance. On hearing the noise, the mother looked out only to find that the child was lying motionless on the payment below. In these circumstances we are unable to appreciate how and on what basis the Coroners' Jury came to the conclusion that the mother must be held guilty of negligence. To permit the seeds of a prosecution to be sown on these facts, seems to us to be a perversion of justice, and if we have the power, we must grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. The verdict of the Coroner's jur...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Bombay Vs. Burjor Hormusji Poonegar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1964Bom7; (1963)65BOMLR191; ILR1963Bom715
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Bombay against the respondents who had filed a suit for the following declarations : (a) that there was a right on their part in limitation of the right of the Government to assess the suit plots of land or, (b) in the alternative, that there was in any event a right on their part in limitationof the right of the Government to assess the said plots of land in excess of the specific limit of assessment payable in respect of the said plots at the time when the Foras Act IV of 1851 first came into operation, viz., 1st July 1851, or to enhance the said assessment; (c) that the appellant had no right to fix or levy or recover the assessment of land revenue in respect of the said plots as intimated by him to them (the respondents) in his notices, all dated 29th June 1943; (d) that the decision and order of the appellant contained in the said notices were illegal, void and inoperative in law and not binding on them (the respondents) and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Bombay Vs. Khatizabai Dharsi Somji Dossa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR311
Shah, J.1. This is a group of four appeals filed by the Collector of Bombay against the decision of the learned Revenue Judge in Suit Nos. 2 of 1943, 3 of 1943, 4 of 1943 and 5 of 1943 respectively to the effect that the plaintiffs were not liable to pay land revenue to the Government of Bombay as superior holders of the lands taken on lease by them from the Central Government.2. There was a group of 20 suits including the present suits, all filed at about the same time in the year 1943, in which the right of the Government of Bombay to levy assessment on the various plots of land in those suits was challenged. The majority of these plots were situated on Sleater Road near the Grant Road Station, which were originally held by the Central Government for the purposes of the B.B. & C.I. Railway and a few of them were situated at Mazagaon or on Hornby Road and were originally held by the Central Government for the purposes of the G.I.P. Railway. When these plots were no longer needed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom263; (1962)64BOMLR274; ILR1962Bom483
Patel J. (1) This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted by the learned Special Judge Nanded, under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947., for each of which offences he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and the sentences are directed to run concurrently.(2) The accused held the post of a Station Master at Bhokar Railway Station on the Central Railway. As such Station Master, he had also to perform the duties of booking goods for transport by railway either in wagon loads or in smaller loads. It was alleged by one Deorao Sambhaji that he used to send foodgrains to several places from Bhokar, that on every occasion whenever he was allotted a wagon he paid Rs. 10 to the Station Master in the past. On 17th June 1959, he has requisitioned one wagon for Nanded and on 24th June 1959, he had requisitioned another wagon for Jalna. On 18th July 1959, he was assigned two wagons and he loaded both these wagons. In th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. F.A. Abraham
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR575
A.K. Sarkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the High Court at Nagpur confirming the decree of the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, declaring that the order reverting the respondent from the rank of officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police to the rank of Inspector of Police, was illegal and void, and granting certain consequential reliefs.2. The judgments of the High Court and the learned Additional District Judge seem to us to be clearly unsustainable. The Courts below held that the respondent had been reduced in rank in violation of the terms of Section 240(5) of the Government of India Act, 1.085, which corresponds to Article 311 of the Constitution, inasmuch as he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the order proposed to be made. It is not in dispute that the opportunity had not been given. In our view, however, for reasons to be presently stated, the respondent was not entitled to that opportunity.3. On June 8, 1948, ...
Tag this Judgment!All India Motor Transport Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raphael George ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom7; (1962)64BOMLR219; ILR1962Bom266
Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original respondent Company against a decision of Mr. Justice K.K. Desai holding that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's petition for winding up of the respondent Company although its registered office was situated within the local limits of the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction of the Poona district and not within the limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. 2. It was contended on behalf of the Company before the learned Judge that this Court was not competent to entertain the petition, inasmuch as the definition of 'Court' as given in Section 2(6) of the Insurance Act, 1938, referred to the principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction in a district and the expression also included 'the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, 'and that, therefore, the Company having had its registered office in Poona, only the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bhasusa Hanmantsa Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom229; (1962)64BOMLR303; ILR1962Bom472
Chandrachud, J.(1) In a raid effected on the 24th of July 1959, two barrels containing wash of 'Angurasava' and three boxes containing 109 bottles labelled as 'Angurasava' were found in the house of the respondent. Samples taken from the barrels and the boxes were sent for analysis to the Chemical Analyser and to the Principal, Podar Medical College, Bombay. As the report of the Chemical Analyser showed that three out of four samples contained alcohol in varying degrees, the respondent and two others were charged of offences under S. 65(f), 66(b), 83(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The defence of the respondent was that he owns a manufactory which produces 'Augurasava' - a medicinal preparation containing Ayurvedic ingredients which general alcohol. In substance, the contention of the respondent was that 'Angurasava' being a medicinal preparation is outside the ambit of the Prohibition Act. Partly relying upon the certificate issued by the Principal, Podar Medical College, Bombay, th...
Tag this Judgment!The Jalgaon Borough Municipality Vs. the Khandesh Spinning and Weaving ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR229
Patel, J.1. This is an appeal which arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,000-15-0 as taxes for the official year 1950-51. The short facts are that in the year 1947 the appellant-Municipality (hereinafter called as the Municipality) altered one of its Rules, Rule 4, in respect of valuation of properties of factories. Under the new rule, the factories were to be valued at Rs. 60 per 100 sq. ft. or part thereof for built area and Rs. 2 per 100 sq. ft. for open space. This rule received the sanction of the Government as required under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act on November 25, 1947, and became effective from April 1, 1948. In pursuance of this rule the Municipality prepared its assessment list as required by Section 81 of the Act. Bills were issued to factory owners. One of the factory owners by name Raghavji Kanji filed a suit, being Suit No. 186 of 1949, on April 27, 1949, against the Municipality for a declaration that...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype Vs. Aba Maruti Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR569
A.K. Sarkar, J.1. These four appeals are by landlords whose applications to the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession of the lands held by their tenants, on the ground that the tenancies had been terminated by due notices on the tenants' failure to pay rents for three years, were dismissed.2. These authorities refused in three of these cases to make an order for possession either because the tenants had paid up all rent which had fallen in arrear or because the authorities thought it proper on the facts of the case to give them time to pay up. They felt that the tenants were entitled to relief: against forfeiture on equitable principles. In the fourth case, which is covered by Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1959, it was held that there had not been on the facts of the case default in payment of rent for three years and, therefore, the tenant, was entitled to statutory relief against eviction under Section 25(1) of the Act which we shall later se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›