Mumbai Court August 1963 Judgments
The State Vs. Kuppuswamy Murgesh Acharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1967Bom199; (1964)66BOMLR5; 1967CriLJ731; ILR1963Bom819
Chainani, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by State against the acquittal of the opponent, who was prosecuted for committing an offence punishable under S. 66(1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.(2) The prosecution story as deposed to by two prosecution witnesses, Sub-Inspector Nagori and Police constable Shriram Keshav Ghag, is that on the evening of 28th January 1962 at about 6-30 p.m. they detained the opponent accused on suspicion, when he was passing along Mahatma Gandhi Road in Goregaon. He was then carrying a hand-bag, in which a bladder containing liquor was found. The accused in his statement denied that he was carrying any liquor. Mahatma Gandhi Road is a crowded locality. The two police witnesses admitted in their evidence that many persons were going on he road when they detained the accused and that they had not made any attempt to make a panchnama. As no panchnama was then made, the learned Magistrate refused to rely on the evidence of these two police witnesses. He therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rambhau Ganpat Sutar Vs. Bhau Tatyaba Patole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR1; 1964MhLJ184
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The common question of law, which arises in these three petitions Nos. 275, 380 and 541 of 1963, is about the interpretation of Clause (b) in Sub-section (5) of Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This clause is in the following terms:The right of a certificated landlord to terminate a tenancy under this section shall be subject to the following conditions, that is to say,...(b) The landlord shall be entitled to terminate a tenancy and take possession of the land leased but to the extent only of so much thereof as would result in both the landlord and the tenant holding thereafter in the total an equal area for personal cultivation-the area resumed or the area left with the tenant being a fragment, notwithstanding, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947.Two different views in regard to this clause have been taken by members of the Bombay R...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas Kedarnath Daga Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR17
Patel, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts proceeded. As a result of the investigation made by the Special Police, two charge-sheets were filed, one with regard to the case which resulted in the first commitment and another which resulted in the second commitment.2. In order that these accused, should be tried, expeditiously, the State Government made a special appointment of Mr. Mahimtura as a Special Judicial Magistrate for Bombay and Nagpur District and invested him with the powers of a Presidency Magistrate. This notification was issued on May, 27 1960, and immediately thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. In due course another notification was issued on September 15, 1961, by which Mr. B.N. Deshmukh, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, was appointed to be an Additional Sessions Judge for Nagpur Sessions Division to exercise jurisdiction in the Court of Sessions for the Nagpur Sessions Division and. by Clause (2) he was required to sit for the cases committed by Mr. M...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom213; (1964)66BOMLR147; 1964CriLJ384
Chainani, C.J.1. The respondents in this appeal are the original petitioners. The first respondents are a public limited company and are the publishers of several important dailies and weeklies in India, including the well known weekly called the Illustrated Weekly of India. The second respondent is one of the Directors of this Company. In one of their daily papers; the Times of India, the respondents publish every day a crossword puzzle for the intellectual amusement of its readers. No fee is charged for entering this contest and the clues are such that there is only one word which fits with each clue. Prior to 1953 the respondents also conducted in the Illustrated Weekly of India a com. petition which was known as ''the commonsense Crosswords'. In this competition there was more than one solution or apt word for each missing word, but there was an adjudication committee which used to decide which one of the alternatives was the most apt word. This competition was held to be of a gamb...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Mazdoor Sabha and anr. Vs. N.J. Alvares and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom13; (1964)66BOMLR332; ILR1965Bom87
ORDER(1) In this Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have claimed direction against Respondent 1, 'Chief Inspector, Shops and Establishments', and the State Government to apply the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to (I) Central Railway Staff Canteen, Victoria Terminus, Bombay 1, (ii) Bombay Police Canteen at Crawford Market (Police Headquarters) and (iii) Government Law College Canteen, Churchgate, Bombay 1. The question has arisen in the following manner :(2) Petitioner No. 1 is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. It claims to have a large number of employees of hotels; residential hotels, restaurants or eating houses as its members and that is activities are to safeguard the interests of the employees in the hotel industry as such in general and particularly in the City of Bombay. Petitioner No. 2 is an employee in the |Central Railway Staff Canteen, Victoria Terminus. I...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Alvares N.J. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1963
Reported in: 1964MhLJ540
1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have claimed directions against respondent 1, 'Chief Inspector, Shops and Establishments,' and the State Government to apply the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to (i) Central Railway Staff Canteen, Victoria Terminus, Bombay-1, (ii) Bombay Police Canteen at Crawford Market (Police Headquarters), and (iii) Government Law College Canteen, Churchgate, Bombay-1. The question has arisen in the following manner. 2. Petitioner 1 is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. It claims to have a large number of employees of hotels, residential hotels, restaurants or eating-houses as its members and that its activities are to safeguard the interests of the employees in the hotel industry as such in general and particularly in the City of Bombay. Petitioner 2 is an employee in the Central Railway Staff Canteen, Victoria Terminus. In connexion ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadar Saleh Mohomed and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom133; (1963)65BOMLR864; 1964CriLJ648; ILR1963Bom800; 1964MhLJ95
Patel, J.1. This revision application is made on behalf of the seven accused, who have been committed to stand their trial before the Court of Session by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for various charges, viz, forgery, using forged documents as genuine, cheating, and the conspiracy to commit these offences. When the case reached before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, arguments were advanced before him that in respect of charge No. 1 in particular and in respect of other charges of forgery which may have occurred outside Indian territories the Addl. Sessions Judge would have no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected these contentions, and against that decision the present revision application is made to this court.2. The accused are nationals of South Africa and they arrived on various dates in India. Accused No. 1 first came to India on the 31st of March 1961. He left within a short time thereafter and returned on 2...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shriniwas B. Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1967Bom200; (1963)65BOMLR839; 1967CriLJ732; ILR1963Bom798
(1) The State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for municipal cases at Sholapur, in favour of the accused Shriniwas B. Soni, who was charged with an offence under section 94 r/w section 193-A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The case for the prosecution was that the accused was a yearn dealer doing business within the municipal limits of Sholapur. Suspecting that a large number of bales of yearn were imported by the accused and brought within the octroi limits of Sholapur Municipality, without payment of octroi chargeable thereon the Chief Officer of the Municipality by notice (Ex. A) dated 24th July 1962, called upon the accused to supply to him information about the number of bales of yarn imported by him during the period from 1st April 1961 upto the date of the notice and other information in connection with those bales. The Octroi Superintendent reported to the Chief Officer on 21st Augus...
Tag this Judgment!The Ratnagiri Municipal Borough Vs. Dr. Shantaram Hari Ketkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR787; 1964MhLJ155
Shah, J.1. The Ratnagiri Municipal Borough has filed this appeal by its Chief Officer Dattatraya Laxman Nene against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ratnagiri, acquitting the accused Dr. Shantaram Hari Ketkar, an Ayurvedic Physician, of the charge under Section 96 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The accused was alleged by the Borough Municipality to have brought within the octroi limits of the town of Ratnagiri a Hillman car in January 1962 and to have fraudulently evaded the payment of octroi duty in respect thereof. The accused contended that he was not using the car within the municipal limits since he had his two dispensaries outside the municipal limits and that he was only using the car for bringing him home in the town of Ratnagiri for lunch, dinner and rest. He further contended that the motor car did not fall within the definition of the word 'goods' as used in the charging section of the Act and, therefore, even if it was held that he wa...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Iypunny Vs. R.N. Kulkarni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom188; (1964)66BOMLR34; [1964(8)FLR175]; 1964MhLJ211
Patel, J. 1. The petition arises out of an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the petitioner to the Labour Court, Bombay. The petitioner was employed as compute on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- and other allowances. He served for about II years and resigned on 6th December 1961 on medical grounds. His resignation was accepted and all his dues except gratuity were paid. He made the application alleging that as per the Cotton Textile Industry award he was entitled to be paid gratuity and requested the Labour Court to compute the amount of the gratuity payable to him. The Labour Court declined jurisdiction and hence this petition.2. The contention of respondent No. I was that as the award was made under Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 and not under Industrial Disputes Act, Section 33C(2) had no application. This argument was founded on the basic contention that the subject matters of Section 33C(1) and 33C(2) were the same i.e. both applied to c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »