Mumbai Court December 1964 Judgments
Laxman Padma Bhagal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom195; (1965)67BOMLR317; 1965CriLJ616; ILR1965Bom648; 1965MhLJ705
Tambe, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 1963, is preferred by original accused No. 5 - Laxman Padma Bhagat : Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1964, is by Haroon Haji Abdulla, original accused No. 8 : and Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1964, is by Ayub Kassim Kika. Original accused No. 9. These three appeals can be disposed of by one judgment. They arise out of the judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court. Esplanade, Bombay, where the aforesaid three appellants along with 15 others were put up for trail. Out of these 18 accused, accused No. 17 was discharged; accused Nos. 14, 15 and 18 - Haji Mahamed Barkati, Haji Sattar and Yusuf Habib had been absconding, and therefore their cases were separated, original accused No. 4, Noor Mohamed Alu Bhati was jointly tried along with the remaining accused, but on the date of the judgment, it was found that he had absconded, and., therefore, his case was separated/ Accused No. 1 Govind Narayan Bengali, who was jointly tried, died after the clos...
Tag this Judgment!Kurban HusseIn Mohamedalli Rangawalla Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR447
K.N. Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court raises questions regarding the interpretation of Section 304-A and Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are not now in dispute and may be briefly set out as found by the Courts below. The appellant along with three partners is the owner of a factory styled as Carbon Dry Colour Works which manufactures paints and varnish. The factory was licensed by the Bombay Municipality in the year 1953 to manufacture paints involving a cold process and was located at 79/81 Jail Road, Dongri. The factory was also licensed to store 455 litres of turpentine, 455 litres of varnish and 14000 gallons of paint. The licence was issued subject to certain conditions to which we shall refer later. The appellant is the manager and working partner. He converted the factory from the cold process of manufacturing dry paints to a process of manufacturing wet paints by heating. For that purpose four burners were ...
Tag this Judgment!Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. M.W. Pardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Bom4; (1965)67BOMLR294; ILR1965Bom531
Tulzapukar, J. (1) This is an appeal preferred by Messrs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Hereinafter called 'the Company' ) against the order passed by he Mr. Justice Kantawala on 22nd September 1964 in company petition No.4 of the admitting the petition and directing the advertisement to be given on and after the 13th October 1964 in the 'Indian Express' and 'Bombay Samchar' and the Government Gazette.(2) A few facts giving rise to this appeal maybe stated. The company was incorporated in January 1938 and its authorized capital consists of 12500 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and 25000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued and subscribed capital of the company concise of the 7500 shares of Rs. 100/- each 25000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. All these shares are fully paid up. Out of this subscribes capital of the company 788, equity shares of The 100 each and 14265 equity shares to Rs. 10 each stand is the name of Narayanalal Bansilal who is the chairman of the Board of the Director...
Tag this Judgment!Navinchandra Jethabhai and anr. Vs. Moolchand Sadaram Gindodiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Bom111; (1965)67BOMLR357; ILR1965Bom641
Patel, J. [1 - 15] XX XX XX XX XX (16) The next question is whether the suit is barred by time. The court below has applied Article 115 o the Limitation Act which is for compensation for the Brach of any contract, express or implied, not in writing registered and not there specially provided for. It the suit were not only for damages for the breach of the contract of partnership, this Article would indeed apply, though the important question would be that of the starting point of the period. The third column which regulation would be that of the starring point provides that the time shall run from the date the contract is broken and in the case of the successive breached when the breach finally ceases. A suit for account and share of profits of a dissolved partnership is governed by Article 106 which provides a period of three years fro the date of dissolution of the partnership. The learned Judge in Paragraph 43 of the his judgment has observed that the time commenced to the run from ...
Tag this Judgment!Velji Raghavji Patel Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1964
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR443
Mudholkar, J.1. In this appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court the question which falls to be considered is whether a partner can be convicted under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that his failure to account for monies belonging to the firm in which he was a partner amounts to criminal breach of trust.The admitted facts are briefly these:The firm, Messrs Bharat Silp Pramandal, which was formed for carrying on the business of building construction, originally consisted of eight partners and the appellant was its working partner. This firm was constituted in the year 1954. But on February 6, 1957, three of the partners retired and the business was continued by the remaining five partners. Disputes arose amongst them, which were referred to arbitration of Mr. J.T. Desai, a Solicitor. Apparently, in pursuance of his award a fresh agreement (exh. N) was entered into by the partners on June 4, 1958. By virtue of this agreement the appellant's share in the firm's bus...
Tag this Judgment!Nava Samaj Limited and anr. Vs. the Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Bom218; (1965)67BOMLR362; ILR1965Bom807
Desai, J. (1) This is petition under article 226 of the constitution challenging the validity of an order of the central Government dated March 24, 1962, purported to have been passed under sub - section [4] of the section [4] of section 89 of the companies Act, 1956 [1 to 1956] [hereinafter referred to as the act]. The order that was passed is annexed as document No. 7 to the petition. The substance of the order is:'............ in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section [4] of the section 89 of the said Act the Central Government hereby rescinds its Order No. 3[1] - C1. VI/57, dated 29-7-1957'.The previous order was passed also under sub section [4] of the section 89 of the act. That was an 'exemption order' granting the petitioners Company an exemption form the requirements of sub - section [1], [2] and [3] of section 89.(2) The fact lending to the filing of this petitioner are shortly as follows: The petitioners company is a joint stock company registered on May 5, 1947 und...
Tag this Judgment!Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Bom27; (1965)67BOMLR534; 1967CriLJ155; ILR1966Bom154
ORDER(1) Some interesting questions of law arise for decision in this revision application which filed by two of the three accused, who were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Clss, Court No. 5, Poona, in a prosecution for having committed certain offences under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and owns the electric supply limes in the city of Poona and its surroundingd. Petitioner No. 2 is the General Manager and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the material time. The third accused who was the Superintended of the Ganeshkhind Receiving Station and as such was in charge of that station, having been acquitted, is not a party to this revision application.(2) There was a major accident in the Ganeshkhind Receiving Station of the Poona Electric Supply Company on the 15th of May 1961, at about 3 p.m. The prosecution case was that the oil circuit breaker of one of the two...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›