Mumbai Court January 1976 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.
RajahuseIn GulamhuseIn Lakhani Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1294
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner, in the above Application, Rajahusein Gulamhusein Lakhani, was convicted, in Criminal Appeal No. 953 of. 1966, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, in connection with the stabbing of one Abdul Jabbar and one Nazir Ahamed, by this High Court on April 26, 1968. He filed a petition for special leave to appeal (C. R. No. 761 of 1968) in the Supreme Court; but that petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 14, 1968-He is now suffering the sentence in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.2. He has filed the above Application, claiming the benefits under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came into force on April 1, 1974. The said Section runs as follows:Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conv...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. West India Chemicals and Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)380
ORDERKania, J.1. Mr. Joshi states that in view of the judgment which we have just delivered in Sales Tax Reference No. 12 of 1971, the correctness of which he does not wish to dispute in this reference, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Motor Machinery
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)381; [1976]384STC78(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and it arises an interesting question under section 57 of the said Act. The reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the question referred to us for our consideration is as follows :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed in appeal is not open to suo motu revision by the Deputy Commissioner under section 57(1) of the Act ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the Reference are as follows :- 3. On 3rd December, 1962 the Respondent, a limited company, was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer for the period from 1-1-1960 at 31-3-1960. The Respondent inter alia manufactures and sells electric motors manufactured by it. The Respondent had collected sales-tax and general sales-tax on the sales of electrical motors at ...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Punjab Bakery
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)388
ORDERKania, J.1. Mr. Joshi states that in view of the judgment which we have just delivered in Sales Tax Reference No. 12 of 1971 the correctness of which he does not wish to dispute in this reference, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. ...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shah and Sanghavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)387
ORDERKania, J.1. Mr. Joshi states that in view of the judgment which we have just delivered in Sales Tax Reference No. 12 of 1971 the correctness of which he does not wish to dispute in this reference, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Phulabai Sadhu Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1519
Vaidya, J.1. The above appeal is filed through jail by Phulabai Sadhu Shinde, who was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhir, on October 24, 1975. in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1974, under Sections 309 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 309, and to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 subject to Section 428 of the New Criminal Procedure Code.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was as under: Phulabai is the wife of the complainant, Sadhu Pandurang Shinde. They lived in village Renapur in Taluka Ambajogai, District Bhir. Sadhu had 3 sons, Babruwahan, Jalam and Pandurang from her. He had one more son, named Vithal, from her, who was aged 1 1/2 years. Phulabai had physical illness since about one year prior to the death of Vithal on August 2, 1974. In spite of medical treatment, the illness was persisting. Vithal was also suffering from rickets for about 2 months prior to h...
Khurshid Khan AmIn Khan Vs. Husnabanu Mahimood Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR240; 1976MhLJ628
Vaidya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution, would have been rejected summarily, without recording the following reasons, but for the fact that the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, while delivering his judgment, on August 27, 1975, dismissing the Criminal Revision Application, filed by the husband, erroneously described the order of the Magistrate, as awarding maintenance to the wife, Husnabanu-respondent No. 1 at Rs. 50 per month though the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had ordered, on the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that the wife is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month from the date of the application i.e. April 18, 1974; and the child, respondent No. 2 is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 50 per month beginning from that date. It is difficult to understand how the learned Sessions Judge committed such a manifest mistake while describing the order passed by the learned Magistrate.2. Now...
Changdeo Kisan Jadhav Vs. Chindya JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1293
Vaidya J.1. The above Application, filed by the Second Party, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, must be rejected because it is directed against an interlocutory order, passed under that section, on March 13, 1975.2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although, under Section 397(2), the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to interlocutory orders, this Court can in exercise of its powers under Section 482 interfere with an interlocutory order. This contention cannot be accepted.3. Section 397(2) was enacted by the Parliament because when revisions in respect of interlocutory orders are filed in High Court and admitted, the proceedings in lower Courts are in most cases stayed; and this holds up the matters until disposal of the revision petitions. The facility of having a wrong or an unjust order set aside, which was available to the litigan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›