Mumbai Court August 1964 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.
Jagannath Sonu Parkar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR38
Patel, J.1. [His Lordship after considering the evidence in the case and upholding the convictions, proceeded.] Mr. Kode relying on the decision in B. Ultrich v. Asst. Collector of Customs : AIR1960Ker335 contended that the learned Magistrate was in error in convicting the accused both under Clause (81) of the Schedule to Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act and also under Section 8(1) read with Section 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. It seems to us that the contention is not well founded.2. Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, enables the Central Government by notification to order that no person shall, except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India bring or send into India any gold or silver. Section 23, as it originally stood, provided for penalties and procedure for imposing the same and contained four sub-sections. Sub-section (1) provided a penalty of two years imprisonment or fine or both for any breach of any...
Mohammad Ilyas Alvi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom156; (1965)67BOMLR170; ILR1965Bom317; (1965)IILLJ487Bom
Tambe, J. 1. By this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order of his dismissal of date August 30, 1961 and also to get quashed the further order of dismissal of his appeal of date October 16, 1962. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent, namely, the State of Maharashtra, to treat the petitioner as if the orders dated August 30, 1961 and October 16, 1962 were not passed. 2. The petitioner joined the Provincial Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was recruited as a Civil Judge, Second Class. On the eve of reorganization of States, that is, on 31 October, 1956, the petitioner was holding a post of an Additional District and Sessions Judge (confirmed) at Seoni. He was allotted on reorganization to the State of Bombay. The petitioner in the reorganized State of Bombay was holding a post of Assistant judge and at the material time, that is, on September 30, 1959, the...
Kamalabai Harjivandas Pareka Vs. T.B. Desaid and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Bom36; (1965)67BOMLR85
Kotval, J.(1) The petitioner claims to be the owner of a piece of land and measuring 2 Gunthas 5 annas, out of S. No. 29A at Juhu. The land originally belonged to her husband, and after his death she claim to have succeeded to it be virtue of a will. The respondents have not admitted her title but the questions is hardly material of the points raised in the present petition.(2) On 2nd May 1942, this piece of land was requisitioned for a purposes of the Union under R. 75A (1) of the then existing Defense of India Rules. The notifications (Ex.1) stated that it was required for military purposes, and it has down now been explained that it was required by for the constructions of a road leadings to the military aerodrome at juhu during the to period of the emergency occasioned by the last war. The owner of the plot was receiving the usual compensation for requisitioning until 29-12-1952, when a notifications was issued under S. 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquistion of Immovable property A...
M.W. Pradhan Vs. Panchal Engineering Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Bom48; (1965)67BOMLR18; ILR1966Bom965
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Court Receiver of a firm called Prabhat Trading Company against the defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and odd due at the foot of the accounts. The Prabhat Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-firm) was a firm carrying on business at Bombay in the sale and purchase of paper and engineering goods. The defendant was firm carrying on business as iron and brass founders at Ahmedabad. Among other things they were manufacturing lathe machines. The defendant-firm was placing others with the plaintiff-firm for the supply of engineering goods. In the same way, the plaintiff-firm was also placing orders with the defendant-firm for the supply of the products of their factory. There was an account opened in the name of the defendant-firm in the plaintiff-firm, and entries were made in this account as transactions took place. The last entry made in the account with the plaintiff-firm was on 17-6-1950. It is commo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›