Mumbai Court September 1963 Judgments
State of Maharashtra Vs. Syndicate Transport Co. (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom195; (1964)66BOMLR197; 1964CriLJ276; 1964MhLJ308
ORDER1. This criminal reference raises an important question of law regarding the liability of a corporate body for indictment on a criminal charge involving the question of mens rea.2. The opponent No. 1, Messrs. Syndicate Transport Company, (Private) Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (Act No. 7 of 1917), with its registered office at Nagpur. I shall refer to it as the Company hereafter The opponent No. 3, Chintaman, is the Managing Director of the Company, while the opponents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are its ordinary directors. The opponent No. 9 Manohar is an ordinary shareholder of the Company. This Manohar wrote a letter to the complainant Khemka Motors (Opponent No. 2) to request for an advance of Rs. 11,000/- to the Company for the purchase or a diesel engine. The letter also stated that the diesel engine, when purchased, would be filled to the Company's bus No. BYY-610, and that bus would then be transferred in the name of the complainant and would b...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmikant Bhaskar Sabnis Vs. Vinayakro Deorao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR182; 1964MhLJ202
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a landlord's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging' the appellate order of the rent control authority in proceedings commenced by the petitioner for permission to terminate the tenancy of opponent No. 1 Vinayakrao in respect of certain premises in the town of Amravati.2. The permission was sought under the provisions of Clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Kent Control Order, 1949, on the ground that the landlord desires to make essential repairs and alterations which cannot be made without the tenant vacating the whole of the premises. The Rent Controller granted such permission in respect of the whole house. Against this order the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.3. Before the Appellate Authority it seems to have been contended on behalf of the tenant that it was only the out-houses of the tenement, i.e. two rooms, which were separate from the main building, which needed repairs. These out-houses...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Sadashiv and ors. Vs. Krishnabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom284; (1964)66BOMLR515; 1964MhLJ595
1. The only question that arises in this appeal is one of limitation. The relevant facts are as follows: On 18-5-1933 one Anant for himself and as the guardian of his minor son mortgaged to one Shrikrishna Survey Nos. 38 and 116/1 for Rs. 700/-. The mortgage amount was payable by seven annual instalments, the first one being payable on 15-1-1934. On 23-7-1940 the mortgagors sold to the plaintiffs their equity of redemption in respect of 3 acres and 20 gunthas out of survey-No. 38, now numbered as survey No. 38/2, and the whole of survey No. 116/1 for Rs. 1400/-. Out of the said consideration, Rs. 650/- were paid in cash and the remaining Rs. 750/- were to be paid by the plaintiffs to the above-said mortgagee. The sale deed recites that the mortgagee had agreed to settle his dues for Rs. 750. The original defendant Kisan was a co-occupant in survey No. 116, he being the owner of survey No. 116/2. Kisan the present defendant filed a suit for pre-emption against the plaintiffs in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Zafrul Islam Vs. Birendra Lall
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom120; (1964)66BOMLR767; 1965MhLJ124
ORDER(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who is an employee working as a motor driver in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, claims a writ of mandamus against the Respondent (Postmaster General, Bombay Circle) directing him to enforce the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Posts and Telegraphs Motor Service, Bombay. The only purpose of the petition is that the Respondent should not prescribe more than 8 hours' duty on any day and 48 hours' duty in any week for the drivers of motor vehicles employed in the Posts and Telegraphs Motor Service.(2) The petitioner's main contention is that the Posts and Telegraphs Department is a commercial undertaking. The Department runs the Motor Service in order to convey mails from and to different Post Offices in Greater Bombay. The Department employs drivers, who are required to work on this Motor Service. These drivers are required to work for 8 hou...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvamohan Raghuviraprasad Tiwari Vs. Mahadu Chaudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom191; (1964)66BOMLR28; 1964CriLJ272; 1964MhLJ227
ORDER1. One Vishvamohan Raghvirprasad, who was the Vive-President of the District Municipality at Dharangaon, Taluka Erandol, occupied the chair at a meeting of the General Board or the Municipality held on 23rd August 1961 since the President had not arrived at the meeting in time. The complainant Mahadu. Chaudhari was one of the councillors and he was present at that meeting. It was alleged by the complainant that in course of the proceedings at that meeting the Vice-President Vishvamohan addressed the 'following words to him :'You Mahadu, what do you think of yourself? What is your worth and what is your status so that you may talk to others against me like a minor and go against our plans? I will bring down your intoxication and if you have fight in you, I will set it right. Jn case you support any action against us, I shall be able to deal with all of you. In case you become aggressive on the support of others, I will deal with you. I warn you that don't utter a single word and do...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotelal Verma Vs. the Corporation of the City of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR502
Chitale, J.1. The petitioners in this case are residents of Nagpur. They have been paying municipal taxes viz. the property tax, water rate, conservancy tax and public latrines cess. Prior to March 2, 1951, Nagpur City had a municipality, whose affairs were managed by a Committee consisting of elected and other members. The said Committee was empowered by statute to levy some taxes on the residents of Nagpur in order to provide them with certain amenities. The Municipal Act that was applicable before the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, came into force was the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (Act II of 1922). Section 66 of that Act empowered the Municipal Committee to impose various taxes including (1) property tax, (2) latrine or conservancy tax, (3) tax for the construction and maintenance of public latrines and (4) water rate for water supplied by the Committee. The Nagpur Municipal Committee had imposed these taxes in the city. The City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948,...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Narayan Patil Vs. Dattatraya Krishnaji Khanvilkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom244; (1964)66BOMLR7; 1964MhLJ216
Tambe, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the Genera! Election of Members to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Alibag Constituency of the Kolaba District, the appellant-petitioner D. N. Patil, the first respondent, D. K Khanvilkar, and the second and third respondents were the contesting candidates. The appellant who belongs to the Peasants and Workers Parly was a candidate in the said Election on behalf of the Sarnyukta Maharashtra Samiti; the first respondent was a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party; respondent No. 2 was a candidate put up by. the Praja Socialist Party, and the third respondent was a candidate put up by the Bharatiya Jan Singh. The candidature of the appellant and the Erst respondent was announced sometime in August 1961; the polling took place on 22nd February, 1962, and the results were declared on 28th February, 1962. The first respondent was declared e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›