Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom243; (1965)67BOMLR54; 1966CriLJ1385; ILR1965Bom289
ORDER[1] This revisional application raises a question of inadmissibility of certain statement made by the petitioners - accused to the Central Excise officers, on the ground of immunity claimed under sub - clauses [3] of Article 20 of the constitution of India. The relevant facts giving rise to the objection taken by the petitioner - accused admissibility of his certain statements under Article 20[3] of the constitution may be stated: The petitioners Ambalal Chimanlal Chokshi is b being prosecuted on a complaint b being filed on 19-12-1963 by the respondents [Shri H.R. Jokhi, Assistant Collector of central Excise, Marine and Preventive Division, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay], for an offense under Rule 126P of Part XII - A of the Defence of India Rules, 1963 [which part contains 'Gold Control Rules'] and section 135[b] of the Customs act, 1962 [ Act 52 of 1962]. The allegation made against the petitioners is that he had acquired possession and was concerned in carrying removing,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1967Bom1; 1967CriLJ21
(1) The appellant was the reader to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur from the 29th of June 1963 till the 1st of October 1963. The complainant Ibrahim (P. W. 1), who has been holding a licence for possession and sale of explosives, had applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, on the 4th of March for a renewal of the licence after adding five more villages therein. The Sub-Divisional Officer was authorized by the district magistrate, amravati, to renew such licences, but without making any alterations therein. Since an alteration was prayed for by way of inserting five other villages, the licence was forwarded to the district Magistrate, Amravati, for renewal on the terms as prayed for by Ibrahim. The licence, however, was not received back from the District Magistrate, Amravati, for several months, and Ibrahim had to go to the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Achalpur, on about five or six occasions to get his licence, if received back. Ibrahim had met the appellant as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR69; 1965MhLJ203
V.S. Desai, J.1. By these applications, the petitioners challenge Rule 15-A in Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Chapter XVII, in which the said rule1 appears, contains rules made by the High Court for dealing with the applications under the jurisdiction and powers conferred upon it by Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution. The impugned rule which was published in Part IV-C of the Maharashtra Government Gazette, Extraordinary, on July 2, 1964, is as follows:Rule 15-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1, 4 and 15 of this Chapter, applications under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under any enactment or out of the orders passed by any other authority or tribunal under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 or the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom164; (1965)67BOMLR43; ILR1965Bom360
Chainai, J. (1) The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on the business of building contractors the in Nagpur. They entered in to a contract with the Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur for Constructing 100 quarters They Constructed 50 quarters. There after disputes arose between the parties. On account of which the petitioners did not complete the work of the construction of the remaining 50 quarters. The corporation therefore carried out the remaining part of the work departmentally. On 28-8-1962 the corporation issued a notice to the petitioners under S. 374 of the city of Nagpur Corporation Act. 1948, informing the petitioners that the corporation proposed to recover to Rs. 8,225 from the petitioners on account of the non - fulfillment of the contract work of the construction of 100 quarters and that they proposed to do so by issue of a distress warrant as provided by the S. 374 read with t he S. 154 of the Nagpur Corporation Act. The petitioners made certain repres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom19; (1965)67BOMLR380; 1966CriLJ9; ILR1965Bom619
Naik, J. (1) This proceeding for contempt of court been initiated by the High Court of the report submitted by Mr. Vimadala, judge city civil court, Bombay (as he then was) in respect of the an incident which took place in his court on 4th March 1963. The facts leading unto the incident on the 4th March 1963 may be briefly outlined as follows: The plaintiff Mrs. Damayanti G. Chandiramani, filed a suit a against the defendants S. Vanvey, for recovery of possession and arrears of compensation on the basis that the defendants was a licenses and that the license was revoked. That suit was filed on 26th October 1962. After the service the summons, the defendants attended the office of Advocates punwani, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit for inspections of the documents,. This was on 10th November 1962. On 10th January 1963 the defendants stared prosecution under section 24 of the Rent control Act a against the plaintiff her parents and Advocates punwani on the basis in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR41; 1965MhLJ800
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner and opponents Nos. 1 to 3 stood as candidates for election from ward No. 2 to the Gram Panchayat of mouza Khadki. Two members were to be elected from this ward and one of the two seats was reserved for women. After the election, the petitioner and opponent No. 2 were declared elected. Subsequently, opponent No. 1 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge, who heard the petition, found that 13 voting papers, which bore more than one stamp mark against the name of a candidate, had been wrongly rejected, as in his opinion the manner of stamping did not suggest that the voter in each of these cases intended to record more than one vote for the same candidate. His finding on this point has not been challenged before Rs. The learned Judge also found that one voting paper bearing No. 10 which had been issued to a voter from ward No. 2 had been found in the ballot box pertaining to ward No. 1. This voting...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom177; (1964)66BOMLR645; ILR1965Bom730
Chainani, C.J.(1) This is a reference made by Naik J. in First Appeal No. 434 of 1963 and Appeals from Orders Nos. 166 and 170 of 1963, which were placed for hearing before him, he was of the opinion that the decisions of this Court on questions, which arose in these appeals were conflicting. These decisions are Abdul Kayum v. Ebrahim 61 Bom. LR 1223 : AIR 1960 Bom 338; Ranjit Patiraj v. Beharam 65 Bom. LR 464 and Ramkishore v. Vijayabahadursingh : AIR1964Bom85 Mr. Justice Naik, therefore, directed that the papers may be placed before the Chief Justice to enable him to refer the matter to a Full Bench. Mr. Justice Naik has not formulated the questions, which have to be considered by the Full Bench. In consultation with, the learned advocates who appears for the parties and the Government Pleader, who has appeared in this reference to assist us, we have formulated the following questions for our consideration.(1) Whether the City Civil Court, Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain a suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ406Bom
1. This is an appeal by the State against acquittal of the respondent, Shavakshaw Ratanji Deboo, in respect of breaches of Ss. 18(1) and 62 and rule 20(13)(a) of the rules framed under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act. 2. Sri S. A. R. Rizvi, Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli, against the respondent charging him with breach of the above provision of the Shops and Establishments Act and the rules framed thereunder. In respect of S. 18(1) the complaint stated that the accused had not closed his above-said establishment on its 'closed' day. In respect of S. 62 of the Act, the accusation was that the accused had not maintained registers and records provided for under the Act and the complaint in respect of rule 20(13)(a) was that he had not maintained the visit book. It appears, along with the complaint, a sanction, purporting to have been given by the District Magistrate, for ...
Tag this Judgment!