Mumbai Court March 1977 Judgments
Chandrakant Laxman Barate and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ72
Deshmukh, J.1. This application raises the question of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC2. The three petitioners before the Court were original accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in the Sessions trial held in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 156 of 1975. As many as 7 accused persons were tried for various offences Under Sections 302, 326, 324, 323 read with Sections 149 and 34 IPC Ultimately by his judgment dated 24-11-1975 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 Under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC as also Under Section 147 IPC Under the first head of charge a sentence of two years' R.I. was imposed along with a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. Under Section 147 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently.3. In the appeal carried to the High Court, being Criminal Appeal N...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingrao Gangaram Pimpale Vs. the State of Maharashta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ711
Aggarwal, J.1. In this application, the petitioner seeks to quash the charge framed against him on 21st April, 1976 Under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ulhasnagar, in Criminal Case No. 659 of 1974.2. The few facts are that at the material time the petitioner was Sub-Inspector of Police. On 14th April, 1972 at about 8-30 p.m., he was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Branch for accepting illegal gratification from the complainant Rege. When he was searched, a country made pistol was found in his possession along with the alleged tainted money. For the commission of the alleged offence of bribery, he was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Thana, ki Special Case No. 2 of 1972. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty. However, this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1974 acquitted the petitioner on 23rd Jan. 1976. On 6th March, 1974, a charge-sheet Under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act was submitted against the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Mumtaz Begum Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ719
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who has alleged herself to be a licensee and occupant of a flat bearing No. B-& on the 2nd floor of Malabar Apartments, Napean Sea Road, Bombay. The Malabar Apartments appear to be a co-operative housing society.2. A few facts that must be noted for the disposal of this petition are these: One Nasim Sultana is the allottee of the said flat from the co-operative society. It is alleged that she gave that flat on leave and licence basis to her own father one Shri G. M. Roshan. It is farther alleged that this Mr. Roshan handed over the said flat to the petitioner in Ms turn on the basis of a licence on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs. 1200/-. This happened sometime in May of 1971. Ever since the petitioner appears to be in continuous possession and occupation of this flat till the night of October 14, 1976.3. On that day late in the night the flat was raided by the Vigilance Branch o...
Tag this Judgment!Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)706
Madon, J. 1. These are three References under S. 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Central Act'), read with S. 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Bombay Act'), which give rise to common questions of law. 2. The applicants were at all materials times registered as dealers both under the Central Act and the Bombay Act. The carried on the business of bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by them for sale as also bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by others for sale. For this purpose the Applicants used to purchase grey fabrics, dyes, caustic soda and others processing materials. So far as the purchase of these materials from outside-State dealers were concerned, the Applicants used to purchase such materials on declarations given by them to their vendors, sating that the goods so purchased were intended for use by them in the manufacture or processin...
Tag this Judgment!Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC1(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. These are three references under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Central Act'), read with section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Bombay Act'), which give rise to common questions of law. 2. The applicants were at all material times registered as dealers both under the Central Act and the Bombay Act. They carried on the business of bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by them for sale as also bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by others for sale. For this purpose the applicants used to purchase grey fabrics, dyes, caustic soda and other processing materials. So far as the purchase of these materials from outside-State dealers were concerned, the applicants used to purchase such materials on declarations given by them to their vendors, stating that the goods as purchased were intended for use by them in the manufacture or ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Products and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ722
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC The petitioners are being tried in the court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The offences are in relation to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.2. The articles manufactured are electrical goods. So far as the manufacture of such articles is concerned, respondent No. 2 who has prosecuted the petitioners has no objection to the manufacture as such. The whole objection is to the use of certain trade mark. They are electrical goods like of which are manufactured by many persons in this country. The petitioners are also claiming that right to use the trade mark.3. In the criminal court the electrical goods were attached after the search was taken by the Police Officer. They are estimated at Rs. 1,00,000/- by respondent No. 2 but the petitioners say that they are worth Rs. 1,54,000/-. The petitioners applied to the Magistrate for releasing the goods for the purpose of being ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Aherbhai Abdeally Khinkhadwala and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ820
Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State from an order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay, by which the learned Magistrate gave the benefit of Section 95 of the I.P.C. to the accused who were prosecuted for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The two accused were found selling hard boiled sugar confectionery which is covered by Rule A. 25.01 of the Rules framed under the Act. Before even the prosecution led any evidence in support of its case, the accused filed an application asking for the benefit of Section 95 of the I.P.C. This application unfortunately was granted by the learned trial Magistrate on the ground that the accused were only sellers of confectionery purchasing them for others. It must be stated straightway that Section 95 shall not be applied and is not applicable to any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A slight deviation from the standard...
Tag this Judgment!Limba and ors. Vs. Manikrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom83; 1978MhLJ490
Vaidya, J.1. The above First Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated Dec. 28, 1968, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,Latur, in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1965, filed by respondent No. 1 Manik-rao, on April 29, 1965.2. The allegations made by the plaintiff, in the plaint, may be briefly summarised as under;The plaintiff was related to defendant No. 1, Sitabai, as per the following pedigree:NARHARRAO (Died in 1939 A.D)|------------------------------------------| | |Bhujangrao Sitabai Govindrao(Died in 1940) (Deft. No. 1) (died in 1950)|Manikrao(Plff.) 3. The subject-matter of dispute was the land, survey No. 24, measuring 25 acres 27 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 19.72, situated at village Shivoor, in Taluka Latur. The said land was part of the plaintiff's ancestral property, enjoyed during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No. 1 Govindrao as joint family property. 4. The father of the plaintiff Bhujangrao died, on Feb. 20,...
Tag this Judgment!Pragji Mulji and Co. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)615
Kania, J. 1. These are three references under S. 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The facts giving rise to these references are as follows : The assessees are a firm and were duly registered as a dealer under the said Act. During the period 1-4-1957 to 31-3-1958, 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959 and 1-4-1959 to 31-12-1959 as well as during the two earlier years, the assessees maintained a Shah account. In respect of the said two earlier years viz. 1955-56 and 1956-57 in Revision Applications Nos. 173 and 174 of 1961 the Tribunal took the view that in respect of the transactions entered into by the assessees which were entered in the said Shah account the assessees had not acted as selling commission agents although they had entered into other transactions as selling commission agents. In those revisional applications the Tribunal took the view that in respect of the said transactions entered by the assessee in the Shah account the assessees were...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Yeshwanta and ors. Vs. Eknath Trimbak Gadekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom71; 1977MhLJ520
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The father of the petitioners, namely, Yeshwanta, was the original tenant from the year 1951-52 of the field S. No. 19/1, area 19 acres 32 gunthas of village Murdapur, Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldana. One Gopal son of Laxman was the original landholder who had leased out this field. By virtue of the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, Yeshwanta became the protected lessee of the said land. Thereafter Yeshwanta had surrendered the tenancy and had also parted with the possession of the land in favour of the tenure-holder Gopal in the year 1956. The field in question was purchased by Trimbak, father of the respondents, vide registered sale deed dated 16-8-1956, for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. After this sale took place, Yeshwanta applied for restoration of tenancy and possession under Section 10 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). His application in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »