Mumbai Court July 1963 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.
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom3; (1964)66BOMLR62; 1965CriLJ12; ILR1964Bom240
(1-18) ( His Lordship stated the facts as indicated in the Head-note and considered the evidence and then proceeded).(19) The first contention made by Mr. Chari was that the conversation alleged to have taken place between the accused and the complainant and recorded on the tape with the help of the tape recording machine is not admissible as it is hit by S.162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Mr. Chari, the circumstances in which the conversation was recorded would clearly establish that the statements, both of the complainant and the accused, recorded on the tape are in the nature of statements made to a police officer, and if these are statements made to a police officer, Mr. Chari contends that the ban imposed by S.162 of Cri P.C. would operate and the court cannot make use of this record for corroborating the complainant. Before examining the validity of this contention, it is necessary to refer to a few circumstances about which there is hardly any dispute. The first ...
Gopal Sitaram Mahashabde Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR836; 1964MhLJ153
Shah, J.1. In this reference the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, recommends that the conviction of the accused Gopal Sitaram Mahashabde under Section 26(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act be set aside for the reasons given by him in Ills judgment dated February 13, 1963.2. It appears that the complainant was one of the tenants of the accused landlord. It was alleged by the complainant that he used to remit rent to the landlord by money order in respect of the premises occupied by him as a tenant, but the landlord failed to give any receipt in respect of any of the rents so remitted by him. There was some correspondence between the complainant and the accused right from January 5, 1961, in this connection. In course of this correspondence the complainant insisted that the accused should send the rent receipts by registered post. The accused, on the other hand, contended that he was not bound to send any such receipts by registered post, but that ...
Rao Saheb Mohanlal Keshavji Kothari and ors. Vs. Rode theresa Gonslves ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR746
(1-9) (Facts of the case appear in the head note).(10) As regards the contention that the application is barred by the Law of Limitation, reliance has been placed by Mr. Mehta on Art. 166 in the first Schedule to the Limitation Act. Under that Article, for all applications under the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, 30 days time from the date of the sale is prescribed. His contention is that this application to set aside sale is under the Code of Civil Procedure and that it would only be made within 30 days from April 6, 1962, being the date of the auction sale. This Notice of Motion has been taken out on July 18, 1962, and is obviously beyond 30 days from the above date of the auction sale. According to Mr. Mehta, therefore, this application must be held to be barred by the Law of Limitation.(11) In this connection, it is necessary to mention that the applications under the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside sales in execution can only be mad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›