Mumbai Court September 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.
Hanmant Kallappa Bhandare Vs. the Food Inspector, Poona Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR181; 1977MhLJ1
Shah, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application came up for hearing before the learned single Judge (Joshi J.). On behalf of the accused, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 , and it was contended that in view of the interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court on the provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') that the said Rule was mandatory, and as in the facts of this case, there was admittedly a breach of the said Rule committed by the authorities, the conviction could not be sustained. The learned single Judge was of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court is distinguishable and would not apply to a case where the article of food is cereals or pulsea, and the mere fact that the lessor quantity than the one prescribed was sent to the public analyst for analysis would not vitiate the conviction. However, the learned Jud...
Sadanand Khanchand and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1341
Chandurkar, J.1. In the view which we have taken in Criminal Revision Application No. 295 of 1975, decided today, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 , that Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter called 'the Rules', is mandatory in nature, facts in detail in this revision application are not required to be stated. It will suffice to say that both the petitioners who are father and son were prosecuted for the offence Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because it was found that a sample of 'China balls', which admittedly is an article of confectionery, was found to be adulterated. Various contentions were raised by the two petitioners before the trying Magistrate, but all of them were negatived, and both were convicted of the offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Appeal against the conviction was decided by the Additional Sessi...
Ganesh Shankar Kulkarni Vs. Janakibai Krishnaji Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom269
Aggarwal, J.1. This second appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge, Kolhapur, has been referred to Division Bench by a learned Single Judge as, in his opinion, it involves important questions, particularly as regards the joinder of proper parties and limitation under Sections 4 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Principally, this appeal involves the point of limitation and in order to appreciate the same, it is necessary to trace the history of the litigation.2. It is common ground that the land in suit bearing Regular Survey No. 386 admeasuring 22 acres and 39 gunthas originally belonged to Shri Swami Jagatguru Matha Karvir and Sankeshwar. By a Sanad of Margashirsha Vad 3, Shake 1756, His Holiness granted it in Inam to Hari Ballal. Hari Ballal had two sons named Bhavanrao and Antaji. Bhavanrao died before 1892 leaving behind his widow Ramabai. Antaji had two sons named Hari and Krishnaji. Hari had a son named Shankar and wife named Radha. Hari died in 1927. In 1892 ...
Rukhsana ParvIn Vs. Shaikh Mohomed HusseIn Mohomed Akbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR123; 1977MhLJ231
Chandurkar, J.1. This petition involves a question relating to the construction of Section 127(3)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'new Code').2. The facts on which this question arises are not in dispute. The petitioner-wife was married to respondent No. 1-husband on February 5, 1968 and she was divorced by the husband on April 7, 1974. The husband treating Rs. 50 per month as proper amount of maintenance sent a sum of Rs. 150 by insured letter, being the total amount of maintenance due from him under the personal Muslim law to the wife. He also sent a sum of Rs. 500 which, was the mahr amount according to him, by money order. The wife, however, declined to accept this amount. She filed an application under Section 125 of the new Code on July 15, 1974. This application was contested by the husband, according to whom, the petitioner had quarreled on April 7, 1974 and she left the house voluntarily and took talak which was given by him on April ...
Rukhsana ParvIn Vs. Shaikha Mohad. HusseIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1041
Chandurkar, J.1. This petition involves a question relating to the construction of Section 127(3)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'new Code').2. The facts on which this question arises are not in dispute. The petitioner wife was married to respondent No. 1 husband on 5th February 1968 and she was divorced by the husband on 7th April 1974. The husband treating Rs. 50/- per month as proper amount of maintenance sent a sum of Rs. 150/- by an insured letter, being the total amount of maintenance due from him under the personal Muslim Law to the wife. He also sent a sum of Rs. 500/- which was the Mahr amount according to him, by money order, The wife, however, declined to accept this amount. She filed an application under Section 125 of the new Code on 15th July 1974. This application was contested by the husband, according to whom, the petitioner had quarrelled on 7th April 1974 and she left the house voluntarily and took talak which was given by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›