Mumbai Court August 1977 Judgments
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxmichand Varhomal Chugani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ845
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence, The accused has been convicted Under Section 135 (ii) read with Section 135-A of the Customs Act.2. The room of the accused was raided on 14-12-1970 when he was found in possession of 173 bars of silver weighing 146.765 Kgs. valued at Rs. 81,455. He was therefore charged for having offended the provisions of Sections 11 (2) (j), (k) and (1) of the Customs Act 1962 thereby committing an offence punishable Under Section 135 (ii) read with Section 135-A of the said Act. At the trial the accused pleaded guilty to the charge and the learned Magistrate acted upon the plea and convicted him. However, it was pleaded before the Magistrate that the accused was a poor broker and had no proprietary interest in the silver and therefore mercy should be shown to him. For the brokerage which was a pretence, he had the temptation to act in the manner in which he did and by the very fact that he is prosecuted, this poor man is ru...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Jawanmal and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer (i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom325; (1978)80BOMLR46
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Since common questions arise for decision in these three matters, they have been placed before us together and we shall dispose them of by a common judgment. How-ever, it will be sufficient if the facts pertaining to one of the petitions viz. in Special Civil Application No. 1769 of 1976 are stated.2. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1769 of 1976 were the Owners of a plot of open land bearing City Survey No. 5 (original Survey No. 28A. Hissa No. 7 part) admeasuring 1093 2/3 sq. yards situate at Nawapada, Thana. An area admeasuring about 907 sq. yards out of the petitioners' aforesaid plot of land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of Naupada Police Station under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), leaving an area of 1862/3 sq. yards (132 sq. yards on the southern side and 54 2/3 sq. yards on the northern side) with the petitioners. In respect of this area of 907 sq. yards the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jesti Dosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1977
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR580; 1978MhLJ157
Naik, J.1. By these two criminal revision applications the State of Maharashtra challenges the orders of the learned Matropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Bombay dated August 12, 1976, discharging the accused.2. Briefly stated on January 1, 1975, the respondent's grocery shop was visited by the Food Inspector. He took samples of mustard oil and coconut oil. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst who reported that both the samples were adulterated. On these facts the two prosecutions were commenced.3. After the Food Inspector was examined and stated in his evidence in chief itself before the charge that he has given the copies of the report of the Public Analyst by hand to the accused and had not sent them by registered post, the learned advocate for the accused submitted that that was a clear contravention of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, and that that rule was mandatory. The learned Magistrate accepted that view and discharged the accused in both t...
Tag this Judgment!Sharadchandra Chandrashekhar Satbhai Vs. Indubai Sharad Satbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR69; 1978MhLJ123
Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 1-Indubai. Indubai filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, for maintenance for herself and two minor children. Each of the minors was awarded allowance of Rs. 30 per month. But as regards Indubai's own maintenance, the application was rejected. Being aggrieved of the said order, Indubai went in revision. The Revisional Court by its order dated September 30, 1976 granted maintenance to ndubai at the rate of Rs. 60 per month from October 1, 1976. The husband seeks to quash this order under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The few facts are that the petitioner and Indubai were married in January 1963. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was serving in the Police Department of Madhya Pradesh. The matrimonial home of the parties was at Indore upto April 1969. From the wedlock, a daughter Bhatabai alias Damayanti and a son Raju were born. On or about April 14, 1969, Indubai left Indore with the...
Tag this Judgment!indrasen Uttamrao Deshmukh Vs. Sadashivrao Sambhajorao Arwade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR343; 1978MhLJ565
Chandurkar, J.1. Certain disputes arising out of partnership business carried on by the petitioner along with respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were referred for decision to five arbitrators viz. respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to 9. The arbitrators are said to have made an award on June 6, 1974 and two of the arbitrators viz. respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed on July 4, 1974 an application for filing of the award. The arbitrators themselves have prayed in that application that judgment and decree be passed in terms of the award. The other three arbitrators were shown as opponents in this application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. Notices of this application were issued to the petitioner and the other partners. According to the petitioner, the notice was served on him on September 11, 1974. It appears that on October 9, 1974 the petitioner filed an application for taking the case on board along with a written-statement. On October 9, 1974 the suit was not fixed for hearing, it havin...
Tag this Judgment!Hirachand Birdichand Kothari Vs. Vijay Cotton Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR214; 1978MhLJ637
Chandurkar, J.1. The only question in this second appeal by the plaintiff is, what is the starting point of limitation for a suit based on a hundi which is handed over to the holder on a date earlier than the date which is borne on the hundi.2. Since this is the narrow question which arises at this stage in the second appeal, it will be sufficient to state the bare facts material to decide this question. Exhibits 32, 33 and 34 are three hounds which were admittedly handed over by the defendants, out of whom defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendant No. 2 is a partner, to the plaintiff in order to discharge its liability on the basis of accounts between the parties. Defendant No. 1 had purchased from the plaintiff's shop certain articles such as cotton, jowar, etc. The hundi exh. 32 is dated April 15, 1958 and is for a sum of Rs. 1,500. Hundis exhs. 33 and 34 are each for Rs. 1,000 and are dated June 15, 1958 and June 30, 1958 respectively. According to the plaintiff, exh...
Tag this Judgment!Janrao Balaji Tanje and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ834
ORDERKambli, J.1. The two applicants-accused in Criminal Revision No. 153 of 1976 were tried for the offences Under Sections 65 (f) and 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) and were convicted by the trial Magistrate for an offence Under Section 65 (f) of the Act only, and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Relying upon the ruling reported in Amar Tharumal v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 77 Bom LR 162, they were acquitted of the offence Under Section 66 (1) (b) of the Act.2. The convictions were upheld by the Appellate Court. It appears that when the appeal came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, the learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offence Under Section 65 (f) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed on the appe...
Tag this Judgment!indo-pharma Pharmaceutical Works Private Limited Vs. Pharmaceutical Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR73
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a pure infringement action instituted by the plaintiff company, which is the proprietor of Trade Mark No, 214336 in Class 5 which consists of the word 'BUTACORTINDON' registered in respect of medical and pharmaceutical preparations as of March 16, 1963. The defendants are a firm which also is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical preparations and have been the proprietors of Trade Mark No. 224322 consisting of the word 'BUTACORT' registered in Class 5 in respect of the pharmaceutical preparation for sale to the hospitals of the Government of Gujarat. This was pursuant to an order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated September 12, 1967. In the suit the plaintiffs complain of the defendants' efforts to sell their pharmaceutical preparation under the trade mark BUTACORT to persons other than the hospitals of the Government of Gujarat. It is submitted that such action amounts to an infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark No. 214336. According to th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Abid Husen Sahib Husen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ429
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal by the State challenging the order of .the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhulia, dated 16th Aug. 1974 acquitting the accused who was charged along with two others for an offence Under Section 420 read with Sections 34 and 511 of the IPC2. Briefly stated the allegations on which the prosecution was founded are these: On 5th March 1974 between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m., Mr, Chandrakant Bharati (P.W. 1) the Office Superintendent of Vidhya Vardhini College, Dhulia, Mr. Desh pande (P.W. 2) a Chartered Accountant who was working as a part-time Professor in the said college and Professor Jain and Librarian Suryavanshi were sitting in the office of the college at Dhulia. At that time respondent-accused No. 1 entered the office and asked these persons viz. Bharati and Deshpande as to whether they wanted cement. It may be mentioned that at that time construction of some portion of the college premises was in progress. Mr. Deshpande gave a reply in the affirmativ...
Tag this Judgment!Achutrao Mokashi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom246; (1977)79BOMLR714; 1978MhLJ782
1. The petitioner having been aggrieved by an order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal delimiting 9 acres 8 1/4 gunthas of surplus land from survey No. 119 filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal challenging that part of the order. The impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal notices the fact that the only contention of the petitioner is that the surplus land has not been delimited as per the choice. It, however, appears that when the appeal was heard before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the officer appearing on behalf of the State challenged the correctness of a finding given by the Lands Tribunal that the petitioner's son Jagdish was a major and his share of 21 acres 2 gunthas was to be left out of consideration. The Tribunal took the view that it was not proved that the entry from the birth certificate related to the petitioner's son and even the horoscope was not proved. Purporting to act in exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »