Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom224; (1965)67BOMLR101; ILR1965Bom394; 1965MhLJ290
Kotval, J.(1) In this Special Civil Application there are challenged two Notification under the Land Acquisition Act whereby the land of the petitioner has been taken by the State of Maharashtra the third respondent before us. On 24th January 1963 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued under the signature of the Commissioner of Bombay Division, the first respondent before us. Since almost every paragraph of this Notifications argued before us it is worthwhile to reproduce the whole of this Notifications. It runs as follows :-'No. LAQ-B - 7244-B- Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Bombay Division, that the lands specified in the Schedule herein (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) are needed for a public purpose viz. for development and utilisation of lands as an industrial area. It is hereby notified under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), that the said lands, are needed for the public purpose spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom124; (1964)66BOMLR799; 1965CriLJ193; ILR1965Bom61; 1965MhLJ94
Chandrachud, J.(1) This appeal has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge for decision of the question whether the special rule of limitation contained in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, applies to prosecutions under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5 of the prevention of Corruption Act. Paranjpe J. sitting on the Nagpur Bench has taken the view in another case that acceptance of bribe is an act done under colour of office and therefore, the prosecution of a police officer for bribery is barred unless it is instituted within six months of the date of the act complained of. The correctness of this view is in question before us.(2) The facts are few and what is necessary to know for the decision, of the point is the nature of the act complained of, the date on which the bribe was taken and the date on which the prosecution was instituted. This bribe is alleged to have been taken by the appellant in March 1963 and the prosecution was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]16STC502(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of all the three references made by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, in respect of the same assessee Shri Hirji Kalyanji, at whose instance identical questions of law have been referred to this Court. 2. The petitioner Hirji Kalyanji does business of supplying and selling bidi leaves to purchasers who were dealers outside the then State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was doing business at Gondia, and the chargeable accounting periods out of which the references arise are : (1) from 7-11-1953 to 26-10-1954; (2) from 27-10-1954 to 14-11-1955; and (3) from 15-11-1955 to 2-11-1956. 3. The references in this order are to paper-books in Sales Tax References Nos. 8 of 1964, 3 of 1964 and 4 of 1964. In Sales Tax Reference No. 8 of 1964 common orders have been passed by the authorities. The Sales Tax Officer, who was the primary assessing authority, determined the total turnover at Rs. 3,43,475 after having increased the returned turnover by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]56ITR269(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and four questions have been referred to us. The first two questions relate to the assessment year 1947-48, and the third and the fourth questions relate to the assessment year 1950-51. The first question now has remained only academic and the answer to the second question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court. We will deal with each question separately and consider the facts relevant to that question while dealing with these questions. 2. The assessee before us is Seth Mathuradas Bulakhidas Mohta, Hinganghat. He had been assessee in the status of Hindu undivided family in the assessment year 1947-48 and has been assessee in the status of individual in the assessment year 1950-51. The first question that has been referred is in the following terms : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the proceedings under section 34 were valid ?' 3. The facts relevant to this question in brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom131; (1965)67BOMLR25; 1965CriLJ197; ILR1965Bom126; 1965MhLJ238
(1) Three police officials, now under suspension, are challenging their convictions and sentences under sections 330, 342, 343 and 348 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) The appellants Atamaram and Uttam are Head Constables and the appellant Bhikaji is a police constable. All three of them were attached to the Jalgaon Police Station in Buldana District in September 1962. On 1st of September 1962, one Akaram went to that police station to report that his brother Lahanu had disappeared. He expressed a suspicion that Lahanu might have been murdered. The Sub-Inspector in charge of the police station recorded that information and ordered the appellant Atmaram to enquire into that report of Akaram.(3) The case for the prosecution was as follows :-From the report of Akaram, the appellant Atmaram suspected that Lahanu was murdered, and Shewanti wife of Sonaji, Dwarki wife of Lahanu, Sheikh Jumma, Sakharam son of Kisan and Sakharam son of Sonaji were involved in that murder. In order to obtain inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom107; (1964)66BOMLR741; 1965CriLJ73
ORDER(1) This reference raises a short but interesting question as to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Second respondent Shantabai is the wife of the first respondent Vishnupant. On 25th January 1963 the wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate. First class, Patoda, in District Bhir. At one stage, an ex parte order came to be passed against the husband on 30-3-1963 awarding maintenance to the wife and to her daughter. But that order was beside on 26-8-1963 and then commenced the proceedings out of which the present reference arises. On 16-9-1963 the husband filed a written statement wherein he took an objection to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Patoda to try the proceedings under Section 488. The Magistrate over-ruled the objection by his order dated 21-10-1963 and proceeded with the trial of the application. Three witnesses were examine...
Tag this Judgment!