Mumbai Court April 1968 Judgments
State Vs. Vithal Hair Nikate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom71; (1968)70BOMLR515; 1969CriLJ300; ILR1969Bom247; 1968MhLJ709
1. This appeal is filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thana setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Wada under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act . 1955 read with clause 3 of Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order of 1963 relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Manipur Administration v. M. Nila Chandra Singh : 1964CriLJ465 .2. It is necessary at the outset to state the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order of 1963. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:7. 'Penalties-(1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3 (a) he shall be punishable (I)................. (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that if the Court is...
Tag this Judgment!Brajvallabh Shankarlal Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and 3 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom218; (1969)71BOMLR111; ILR1969Bom819; 1968MhLJ736
ORDER1. The only question that is involved in the present petition is whether the finding which has been given by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, is appealable. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has by its order dated 26th April 1966 held that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 33 of the Act, The matter arises in this way.2. The respondent No. 3 Rambilas was the tenure-holder of Survey No. 5, area 22 acres 19 gunthas of mouza Aurangpur, taluq Daryapur, district Amravati amongst other property. The said Rambilas executed a deed of gift in respect of this field on 31st march 1960 in favour of the petitioner Brijvallabh. This gift deed was said to be in pursuance of a kararnama said to have been executed by Rambilas in favour of Brijvallabh on 12th of December 1958.3. Proceedings under the Ceiling Act were taken against Rambilas. There was a report by the revenue authorities that on 4-8-1959 t...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank Employees Association, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom199; (1969)71BOMLR99; 1969CriLJ711; ILR1969Bom804; 1968MhLJ725
ORDER1. The present applicant who was complainant has lodged this application under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to review my judgment dated 25th April 1967 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 1967, incorporating a direction in the judgment that the arguments in the case should be heard afresh before delivery of judgment.2. The original complaint was for the offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code against the 9 accused who are the non-applicants 2 to 10 in the present application. The trying Magistrate held the 9 non-applicants guilty of offence under Section 352, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or in default simple imprisonment for 7 days. Against the judgment of the trying Magistrate, revision was preferred by these 9 applicants before the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who confirmed the convictions and sentences passed by the trying Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Manoramabai Bapurao Vs. Satyabhamabai Bapurao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR686; 1968MhLJ608
Padhye, J.1. This revision petition raises a question about Court-fees. It arises in this way.2. In the suit before the trial Court, plaintiff No. 1 was being examined as a witness on her behalf. While questions were being put to plaintiff No. 1 in cross-examination, the counsel for the plaintiffs objected to those questions being put. The evidence of plaintiff No. 1 was lengthy one and, as observed by the learned trial Judge, consisted of about 59 pages and the evidence was being recorded from July 6, 1966 to August 19, 1966. When the objections grew frequent, the learned Judge directed the plaintiffs' counsel to put the questions and his objections in writing. This order was challenged by the plaintiffs in Civil Revision Application No. 356/66 (1966) Civil Revision Application No. 356 of 1966, decided by L.M. Paranjpe J., on April 19, 1967 (Manorambhai v. Satyabhambhai) (Unrep.). This Revision Application was dismissed by the order dated April 19, 1967. It was contended in the revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom189; (1969)71BOMLR105; 1969CriLJ706; ILR1969Bom334; 1968MhLJ784
Abhyankar, J.1. The appellant Atmaram has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the imprisonment for life on the allegation that he killed his own father on the night between the 5th and 6th of March, 1967 at village Hingne-Karegaon.2. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the appellant Atmaram was demanding his share from his father, Namdeo, and there were disputes and friction between the father and son for some time. The deceased, Namdeo, owned about 25 acres of land at village HingneKaregaon, and besides the appellant, Namdeo had two other sons, Shaligram and Janardan, all of them apparently staying together in the village. One of the fields of Namdeo, survey No. 123, was known as 'Chambharkhori' and the appellant worked in that field with his father. They had establishment on the land and there was a Mandav as well as a hut and the bullocks used to be tethered on the land. On the date of the incident, the appellant had carried bread for himsel...
Tag this Judgment!Varjivandas Hirji and Co. Vs. D.T. Ghatpande and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom95; (1968)70BOMLR500; 1968MhLJ717
Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in Asafoetida. Respondent No.1 is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner appointed by the Central Government for the State of Maharashtra. He has also been appointed by the Government of Maharashtra as an Inspector under S.13 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. Respondent No.2 is the Union of India. Respondent No. 1 has applied to the petitioners the provisions of the Provident Funds Act under a Notification issued by the Central Government on 7th March 1962 under S. 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 19 of 1952 whereby the provisions of the said Act have been made applicable to every trading or commercial establishment employing 20 or more persons. The petitioners contend that they are an establishment which is a factory engaged in the manufacture of Asafoetida and under S. 1(3)(b) the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Varjivandas Hirji and Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (D. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ744Bom
Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are a partnership-firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in asafoetida. Respondent 1 is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner appointed by the Central Government for the State of Maharashtra. He has also been appointed by the Government of Maharashtra as an Inspector under S. 13 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. Respondent 2 is the Union of India. Respondent 1 has applied to the petitioners the provisions of the Provident Funds Act under a notification issued by the Central Government on 7 March, 1962, under S. 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 19 of 1952, whereby the provisions of the said Act have been made applicable to be very trading or commercial establishment employing twenty or more persons. The petitioners contend that they are an establishment which is a factory engaged in the manufacture of asafoetida and under S. 1(3)(b) the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansing Surajsingh Padvi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR654
Tarkunde, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Padvi tribe in the West Khandesh District, There are in that District six estates of tribal Chiefs called Mehwassi Estates. The petitioner is the owner of one such estate. His estate is known as Kathi Estate and it comprises of 99 villages in Maharashtra and 2 villages in Gujarath. The cultivable lands in the 99 villages comprised in Maharashtra are in the possession of about 7,000 cultivators.2. The Mehwassi estates are a scheduled area under Article 244 and Schedule V of the Constitution. On 24th February 1962, the Governor of Maharashtra issued a Notification under sub-para. (1) of para. 5 of the Fifth Schedule. At about the same time, in exercise of his powers under sub-para. (2) of para. 5 of the Fifth Schedule, the Governor made a Regulation called the West Khandesh Mehwassi Estates (Proprietary Rights Abolition, etc.) Regulation, 1961. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said Notification and the said Regulation and pray...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›