Mumbai Court August 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.
Laxman Namdeo Gabale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2022
ORDERApte, J.1. This is a revision petition by the complainant against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate giving his consent on the application of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, to withdraw from the prosecution which was launched by the police on the information given by the complainant against respondents Nos. 2 to 19 alleging offences Under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C.2. Sometime after midnight between Dec. 23 and 24, 1975, according to the charge-sheet, the accused committed dacoity in the house of the complainant and removed property such as foodgrains and other agricultural produce, household utensils and documents totally valued at Rs. 13,635/-. It was also alleged in the charge-sheet that while committing the dacoity, the dacoits intimidated the mother and the wife of the complainant.3. On Jan. 15, 1977 the Assistant. Public Prosecutor filed an application Under Section 321 of the Cr. P. C., 1973, seeking permission to withdraw from the prosecution...
Chandrakant Vishwanath Jakkal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ431
ORDERApte, J.1. These two applications by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are directed against the order passed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the first petitioner and also confirmed the order t of conviction but only reduced tne sentence of six months awarded to accused No. 2 by the trial Court to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court.2. Revision petitioner Chandrakant Jakkal, who will hereafter be referred to as 'accused No. 1', was in the employ of the Municipal Corporation of Sholapur as a Deputy Engineer and the revision petitioner Appasaheb Nanasaheb Babar who would be referred to as 'accused No. 2' in the companion petition was employed in the same Corporation as an Overseer.3. It appears that accused No. 1 was working as a Deputy Engineer in the City Engineering Department of the Corporation upto Oct. 16, 1970 and thereafter h...
B.S.J. Bedi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2025
ORDERNaik, J.1. This is an application pur-porting, to have been filed Under Section 483 of the Cr. P. C., by one Dr. B.S.J. Bedi, the former Chief Justice of the Sind High Court who has argued the case in person.2. The facts giving rise to this application as stated by him in person are briefly these : He was serving as a Chief Justice of the Sind High Court. On 31st Aug. 1958 be was relieved of his services and then he came to India along with his aged mother. The Government of India gave him three houses and a plot admeasuring 400 sq. yds. at Ulhasnagar. This property was worth about Rs. 2 lacs. Immediately thereafter he went to Amritsar and started working as a religious teacher in the Golden Temple. His duty was to explain the philosophy of Guru Nanak to the foreigners. He claims to have donated his entire property worth Rs. 2 lacs to the Golden Temple. His grievance is that respondents 4, 5 and 6 who according to him are Gundas with several previous convictions to their discredit...
Chintaman Anant Khasnis Vs. Keshav Dnyanu More and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom248; 1977MhLJ755
Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner is a certificated landlord under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'). He had filed an application for obtaining possession of the entire tenanted land under the provisions of Section 33B of the Tenancy Act. The application was rejected by the Mamlatdar principally on the ground that he had previously applied under Section 31 of the Tenancy Act and had obtained a final order in his favour. In the circumstances, Section 33B(5)(a) would come in his way and he was not entitled to any relief. The appeal filed by the landlord succeeded as the Special Deputy Collector held that resumption under Section 33B(5)(a) meant actual recovery of possession and not a mere order to obtain possession passed by the Tribunal under Section 31. The tenant was dissatisfied and filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision application by accepting ...
The Garrison Engineer (Projects) Officer Vs. Guttamma Hanmatdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR24
Naik, J.1. This appeal raises the question of interpretation of Section 12(1) read with Section 2(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. It arises as under : The Navy department wanted to abolish its barracks situate at Colaba. For that purpose they entered into an agreement exh. 40 with the firm of auctioneers called 'Gandhi and Co.' on January 23, 1968. Admittedly one padmanabhan being the highest bidder, he started demolition of the buildings. Among others this Padmanabhan had engaged one Chinnayya (exh. 37) and his since deceased brother Hanmatdas. On April 15, 1968 when this Hanmatdas was engaged in demolishing the walls of the military barracks he fell and sustained injuries as a result of which he died on April 28, 1968.3. On these facts Smt. Guttamma, the widow of deceased Hanmatdas filed an application for recovering compensation. She impleaded both Padmanabhan and Garrison Engineer-present appellants as opponents. Padmanabhan could not be served and was deleted from, t...
Popatlal Motichand Shah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ249; 1977MhLJ855
ORDERGinwala, J.1. This revision application has been filed against the order convicting the applicant of the offence Under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 weeks.2. The prosecution case against the applicant was that on 23rd October, 1974 at about 12-15 p.m. the applicant was in the Municipal Dispensary at Darwha. He was at that time under the influence of drink and was behaving in a disorderly manner by uttering some abuses. Sub-Inspector Ahirrao, who was in the Dispensary at that time, directed some policemen who1 were present there, to apprehend the applicant in view of his condition. Accordingly Constable Jagoba (P. W. 1) and Head Constable Vinayakrao (P. W. 2) apprehended the applicant. Since the Medical Officer, of the Darwha Dispensary was out of town, these two ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Juliet M. Fateh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas112(Bom); [1979]116ITR368(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question that has been referred to this court for determination in this reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, runs thus : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the credit of the tax of Rs. 1,350 deducted at source from the gross dividend of Rs. 4,500 ?' 2. The assessee in an individual and the assessment year is 1962-63 the corresponding previous year being the financial year which ended on March 31, 1962. The assessee's husband owned a number of shares in Oxy-chloride Flooring Products Ltd. and out of his said shareholding he had got 1,000 shares converted into share warrants as permitted by the relevant articles of association of the company. The assessee inherited the said share warrants. In the previous year relevant to assessment year 1962-63, the assessee received a net dividend of Rs. 3.150 after deduction of tax of Rs. 1,350 from the company in respect of the sai...
Prabhat theatres (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1979]118ITR953(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Pursuant to the order of the High Court at the instance of the assessee, the following three question are referred to us for our determination : '1. Whether the Tribunal erred in going into the question whether the assessee's occupation was illegal, that too when the same had not been challenged by the department before it 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant's occupation was illegal 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in disallowing the interest ?' 2. Prabhat Theatres Private Ltd., the assessee, carries on business of exhibiting motion pictures in a theatre called 'Kibe Theatres'. It is the case of the assessee that for the assessment year 1959-60, for which the relevant previous year was the calendar year 1958, the assessee-company was entitled to claim as a deduction an amount of interest of Rs. 34,080 paid by the it to the owner of Kibe Thea...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Merck Sharp and Dohme of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1983]140ITR334(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The questions referred to us really depends upon whether the arrangement between the assessee on the one hand and . On the other evidenced by the agreement dated May 25, 1959, amounts to a leases or a licence. The Tribunal has found that the arrangement between the parties is one of pure licence. The agreement also clearly bears out that finding. In view of this finding the question referred to us would be covered by the decision of this court in I.T. Reference No. 7 of 1967, decided on 10-11-1976 CIT v. Bayer Agrochem Ltd. : [1982]134ITR240(Bom) . The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 2. No order as to costs. ...
Vasantibai Shantaram Patil Vs. Shantaram Devu Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ403
Sawant, J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30th Sept. 1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, 'in Criminal Revision Application No. 78 of 1975.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to this petition are as follows:-The petitioner who is the wife of respondent No. 1 had filed an application for maintenance Under Section 488 of the Cr.PC 1898, i. e. old Code, being Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 1963 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Thane. The following order was passed in the said application:-The applicant is entitled to claim maintenance from the opponent at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. As the applicant and opponent have agreed to stay together upon the condition mentioned in Exh. 9, the applicant to claim such maintenance so long as she is staying with the opponent as per Exh. 9.It appears that the petitioner could not stay with the respondent-husband since he had kept a mistr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »