Mumbai Court April 1977 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.
Madhav Keshav Mirashi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR321; 1978MhLJ219
Deshmukh, J.1. This application raises a question of some interest under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with the Maharashtra Scheduled Food Grains (Trade, Monopoly) Order 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Order').2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a proprietor of an eating house from Sangli named Avad Nivad Bhojnalaya. He has been doing this business of a boarding house for the last about ten years. From the affidavits filed by him, the petitioner seems to be doing a fairly prosperous business. He has about four hundred boarders taking food every day and the requirement of wheat for the purpose of chapattis is alleged to be about eighteen to twenty bags per month.3. Under the said Order it was incumbent for every person in the State whether he is a private individual, businessman or a trader to file a return in relation to wheat as soon as that individual came in possession of more than ten quintals of wheat...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Udayram Rupram Oza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1807; 1978MhLJ1
Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State against an order of acquittal passed in respect of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, raises an interesting point of law.2. The respondent-accused was running a hotel known as 'Shankar Vilas Hindu Hotel' situated in Shetiya Market at Parel, Bombay. On 28th September, 1973 at about 3-15 p.m. the Food Inspector of the Food and Drugs Administration, visited the shop and after disclosing his identity, asked the accused to give him 600 m. 1. of buffalo's milk. According to the prosecution, the accused gave the quantity of milk asked for and received Rs. 2/- as price of the same. After following the usual procedure of dividing the sample into three equal parts and adding 20 drops of formalin to each one of the said samples, and after the receipt of the report from the public Analyst, to whom one sample was sent, the complainant filed this complaint against the accused, charging him with the offence punishable Under Se...
Murlidhar Dullabhdas Wani Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR160; 1977MhLJ54
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application by the five accused persons for quashing the charge framed against them and to discharge them from the prosecution.2. The undisputed facts, are as follows; The petitioners are the traders whose godown and shops were raided by the food inspector on November 29, 1972. Purchase of Bajara was effected for the purpose of analysis under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. All formalities were performed and a sample attached. One portion of the sample was sent to the public analyst and a report was received dated January 29, 1973 that the Bajara is adulterated inasmuch as it contains 5 per cent, of the damaged grain. In due course a complaint was lodged against the petitioners on November 26, 1973 under the provisions of Sections 7 and 16 read with Section 17 of the said Act3. On November 20, 1975, the petitioners-accused moved the Magistrate by an application to send the sample produced in Court to Calcutta for being examined...
Mahmad Usaf Abasbhai Bidiwale Vs. Hurbanu Mansur Atar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR102; 1978MhLJ26
Sawant, J.1. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 who are the grand-daughter and grand-father respectively had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 227 of 1966, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad, against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are son and father respectively for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,295 being the value of various articles given to defendant No. 1 in his marriage with plaintiff No. 1. According to the plaintiffs, the marriage between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 was performed on December 5, 1965. Before the marriage, there was an agreement entered into between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 2 on December 25, 1964 and by virtue of the said agreement, it was agreed that the plaintiffs would give defendant No-. 1 certain articles such as golden ring, utensils, etc. in consideration of the defendant No. 1 marrying plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 lived as husband and wife till August 9, 1966, on which date defendant No. 1 pronounced talaq. According to t...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bodya Ramji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ411
Kambli, J.1. Respondent Bodya alias Vanwas son of Ramji Patil, aged about 20 years (at the time of occurrence), resident of Saygaon in Tahsil Umred of District Nagpur, has been convicted by 4th Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, of an offence Under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead of sentencing him to any punishment, the learned Judge released the respondent after executing a personal bond of Rs. 500 with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year for keeping peace and be of good behaviour Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.2. Initially, the respondent was charge with an offence Under Section 307, or in the alternative Under Section 326 of. the I.P.C. As he happened to be acquitted of these offences, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1975 against the acquittal of the respondent of those offences. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1975 challenging the order of the learned Extra Assistant Sessions J...
Jeevan Singh Gurubax Singh Rajmestry Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1977
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR257
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application from Jail by the applicant who is convicted under Section 304 part (2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to suffer further R.I. for six months.2. The petitioner was arrested on January 31, 1975 on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He was tried also under the same charge but as a result of the evidence before the Court, the offence was reduced to Section 304 part (2) and the above mentioned sentence was imposed upon him. The only effective prayer that is made in this matter is that the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner from January 31, 1975 to October 20, 1975 when he was convicted should be directed to be deducted from the sentence imposed upon him, under Section 428 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a right of the accused person and he should not have to make such an application at all. However, the peculiar manner in which the se...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Morarji Hirji Maru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR87; 1978MhLJ260
Deshmukh, J.1. These twelve revision applications involve facts which are identical and points of law which are common. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are not in dispute. There is a big godown in Broach Galli, Bombay. The open space inside the godown has been notionally divided into Galas and Gallis by drawing lines. The respondents have various galas as their places of business. To give the facts of Revision Application No. 85 of 1975, which are representative in character, it would appear that Gala No. 5 of 'L' Galli was notified by the respondent-accused as, his place of business as detailed in condition 2(a) of the licence issued to him as an authorised dealer under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrain Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. This is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Every dealer under these provisions has to notify the place of business and get it entered upon his licence. If he wants to change ...
Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Vs. Chemtex Fibres Inc. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom106; (1979)81BOMLR49
ORDER1 to 23 ..... 24. Shri M.H. Shah the learnedCounsel for the defendants,contends that the agreements betweenthe plaintiffs and the defendants are theagreements which come within the purview of the 1961 Act and that the claimsof the plaintiffs in the suit are matterswhich have been agreed to be referred toarbitration by virtue of and under thearbitration clauses contained in the saidagreements. Consequently, the learnedCounsel claims that under Section 3 of the1961 Act the suit is liable to be stayed.The learned Counsel emphasises the peremptory character of the legislative injunction in Section 3 and submits that theCourt has no option but to grant stay ofthe proceedings. Shri. A.K. Sen, thelearned Counsel for the plaintiffs, arguesthat the provisions of Section 3 of the 1961Act are not attracted in the present case.The conflict will have to be resolved withreference to the relevant provisions oflaw seen in the context of the facts ofthe present case.25. The 1961 Act gives effect t...
Paramhansa Ramkrishna Maunibaba Vs. Trimbak Rajaram Deshmukh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom176
ORDER1. The short point involved in this revision is as to whether the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darwha has committed any error in not allowing the plaintiff to examine himself on commission.2. The plaintiff filed an application dated Nov. 23, 1976, in the trial Court, requesting that the evidence of the plaintiff himself and his witness Awadhut may be recorded on commission. Defendant no. 2 did not object this application. However, it appears that defendant No. 1 raised an objection. The learned Civil Judge passed an order that the evidence of witness Awadhut should be recorded on commission as he is an old and ailing person, but it was directed that the plaintiff should examine himself in Court and not before the Commissioner. It is this order that is being challenged.3. In the application, the plaintiff has stated that he is a Paramhansa and that he always remains in naked condition. It is on that count that a prayer was made that the plaintiff need not be asked to come...
Sharad Vs. Vishnu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom187
ORDER1. The only point involved in this revision is as to whether the tenancy of the petitioner (original defendant) has been properly terminated.2. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 2461/1975 in the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, to recover possession of a house property with an allegation that by a notice dated May 20, 1975, the defendant's tenancy has been terminated by the end of the tenancy month of June 1975. The learned Small Causes Court, after recording the evidence that was led before it, came to the conclusion that the tenancy has been terminated. Consequently, a decree for possession has been passed and the defendant has come in revision.3. The contention of the defendant is that his tenancy has not at all been terminated and, as such, the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the rented premises. At the stage of this revision petition, there cannot be any controversy that the plaintiff sent a notice dated 20-5-1975 to the defendant by registered post. Ex. 17 is a copy of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »