Mumbai Court March 1981 Judgments
Hari Nilkantha Patwardhan Vs. Mahadev Vinayak Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR524; 1982MhLJ91
Rele, J.1. This revision application, raises an important question of law, viz., whether the Magistrate has got power to discharge the accused under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of appearance of the complainant or of the witnesses, who were examined prior to the framing of the charge and whose presence was required for the purpose of cross-examination.2. The complainant is a teacher in Vidya Mandir Prashala, Miraj. He filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that between June 30, 1963 and August 19, 1963, the petitioner misappropriated the amount of Rs. 292.50, which was, alleged to have been entrusted to the petitioner. According to the complainant, the accused was the Head Master in a school called Vidya Mandir Prashala, in the year 1962-63. The said amount of Rs. 292.50 was received by the Prashala from the N.C.C. office for the clothes of A.C.C. students, it is alleged that this amount was rece...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhanalaxmi V. Meisheri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR295; [1981(42)FLR335]; (1982)ILLJ18Bom; 1981MhLJ635
Mody, J.1. The respondent accused is a medical practitioner and is running a nursing home which has a staff of 7 persons consisting of 3 nurses, 3 ayahas and 1 metrani. The entire staff does not work at a time but works in shifts.2. On or about 5-4-1976 an Inspector of Ward ('B') working under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, visited the nursing home and made his report regarding his observations and came to the conclusion that the maternity home was an establishment within the meaning of the said Act read with the notification issued by the State Government dated 12-4-1973 and consequently a prosecution was launched against the respondent accused under the said Act. The learned Magistrate relying on several authorities of this Court as well of Supreme Court came to the conclusion that a maternity home cannot be said to be a commercial establishment and accordingly the notification issued by the State Government was illegal and invalid and acquitted the respondent.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Chawla and anr. Vs. Official Assignee, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom443
ORDER1. This petition raises an interesting question with regard to the scope and powers of the Court to grant leave to prosecute legal proceedings in a pending suit, under Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (3 of 1909).2. Insolvent Ramgopal Khanna was adjudicated Insolvent by this Court in Insolvency Petition No. 45 of 1969 on 1st July, 1969.3. The Applicants filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane, being Civil Suit No. 145 of 1975, inter alia, against the heirs land legal representatives of the Insolvent who were joined as defendants 1 to 6 in the suit. The suit had been filed by the Applicants against the heirs and legal representatives of the Insolvent for the purpose of recovering vacant and peaceful possession of certain premises described in the Plaint therein, and for other ancillary reliefs. It may be pointed out that the suit was filed in the year 1975 and applicants were aware of the fact that Ramgopal Khanna had been adjudicated ...
Tag this Judgment!Devilal Ganeshlal Mehta Vs. the Director of Enforcement and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ588
1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against the order of the Appellate Board constituted under the said FER Act confirming the order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the present appellant for having contravened the provisions of S. 8(1) of the said Act.2. The facts of the case are as follows :-On 17-11-1975, upon receiving information from reliable sources, the officers of the Authority under the Act raided Room 3, Ghaswala Building 18 Mangesa Shenoy Street, Bombay 1. It was not disputed before the Authorities below nor it is disputed before me by Mr. Chopda, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the premises were shop-cum-residential premises and they were held by one Vijaykumar Trilokji Shah as a tenant. There is no dispute that the present appellant was also staying in these premises and one Babulal P. Talesara, was also staying there. At the time of the raid, however, only Babulal P. Talesara was presen...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. Vs. Vijay Metal Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom6; 1981MhLJ798
ORDER1. The petitioners had imitated action against the respondents for eviction on the ground that Mahalaxmi Bridge at Bombay was to be reconstructed and those premises which are in the shape or Arches at the junction of Clark Road and Hama Road were to be vacated. The notices were, therefore, served by the petitioners upon the respondents and eviction proceedings under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 were taken, before the Small Causes Court at Bombay. During the cross-examination of the witness for the respondents, the Corporation was called upon to produce original letter dated 5-2 1975. Earlier inspection of this letter was granted by the Corporation and I am told that the letter had been filed before the Enquiry. Officer of the Corporation. When the respondents called upon the Advocate of the Corporation to produce the original letter dated 5-2-1975, an objection was raised mainly as regards privilege, According to the Corporation, this was a confident...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Himmatmal JaIn and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR603; 1981CriLJ1813; 1982MhLJ19
ORDER1. The petitioner No. 1, who is the employer, and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, who are the employees in the first petitioner's chemist shop known as 'Maharashtra Medical Stores' at Kalachowki, Bombay, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash proceedings Case No. 186/S of 1977 pending in the Court of the Metro-politan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.2. This Application raises an important question in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of an offence without first condoning the delay. Petitioner No. 1 is the proprietor of Maharashtra Medical Stores. Petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of the said proprietary concern. Petitioner No. 3 is a qualified person employed in the said concern and petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 are the employees.3. In the course of investigation in C.R. 64/74 of Criminal Branch Control (Drugs). C.I.D., Bombay, the police arrested one Rajanikant Laxmichand Mehta on 23rd July 1974 and seized from his residence at Sonawall...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Nanaji Kalu Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1092; (1982)IILLJ241Bom; 1982MhLJ565
Pratap, J.Order of acquittal dated 13th January, 1977 passed by the learned sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1976, in which the accused stood charged for offence under Section 14(g)(ii) of the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Act, 1951 (hereinafter the said Act), is challenged in this appeal against the same by the State.2. At the relevant time (October, 1973), the accused was one out of five constables under a head constable manning check post at Jawda in Shahada taluka of Dhule district with a view to curb illegal export activities relating to cotton and foodgrains outside the State of Maharashtra. The head constable at the said time in charge of the aforesaid check post was one Sarode. This party was on duty from 14th October, 1973. On 25th October, 1973, the accused received information that his son, a one-year-old boy, suffered an accident by falling down from a staircase and injuring himself. On receiving this information, the accused requested Head Constable Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Atmasingh Bajaj Vs. Gulam MohiuddIn M. Sayyed and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR460(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN97(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. In Insolvency proceedings against the two respondents who are husband and wife, the appellant-claimant has been shown by the respondent as a credit in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,000 only, while the appellant-claimant has filed before the official assignee of the High Court a claim for Rs. 1 lakhs which is said to be due from the insolvents. Accounting to the respondents, the claimant had disclosed the amount due from them as being Rs. 10,000 only in a statement file by him with the I.T. authorities on November 19, 1971. By an ex parte order dated September 29, 1978, the Insolvency Registrar was ordered at the instance of the respondents to issue letters of request to, (i) the commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-V, (ii) the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay, and (iii) the 7th Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bombay, to cause to produce an application for settlement under s. 271(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed by the claimant with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mundra Salt and Chemical Industries Vs. Paramjit Singh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR823(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is registered under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing and selling common salt and has its head office situated in Thana town. The petitioner purchased in an auction sale held by the Collector, Thana, land admeasuring about 244 acres situated at Mulund and Thana. The petitioner constructed certain salt works on the said property. The Bombay Municipal Corporation was desirous of acquiring a portion of the aforesaid property, and the portion admeasures about 3 lakhs square yards. By an agreement dated October 25, 1967, between the Corporation and the petitioner, the possession f the land was handed over to the Corporation, and the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the purchase price. It was agreed between the parties that the Corporation would take steps to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioner would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Radha Dyeing and Printing Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC61(Bom)
Madon, J.1. In each of these above five references under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the following question has been submitted to this Court for its determination :'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of section 41(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with the notifications issued thereunder, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that a precise quantification of the tax is not possible thereunder and, therefore, that provision was unenforceable ?'2. The facts which have given rise to these references are that the respondents are a registered dealer and have also been certified by the Commissioner of Sales Tax for the purposes of entry 39 to Notification No. STA. 1059-(iii)-G-1 dated 28th December, 1959, issued under section 41(1) of the said Act as registered dealers who manufacture cotton fabrics of the type mentioned in the said entry. The respondents, however, did not themselves manufacture in its ordinary sense, that is, di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »