Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-15-1975
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR1
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. This petition relates to a very important question regarding basic human natural rights to hold a peaceful assembly of some lawyers who are invited by individual invitations to discuss civil liberties and the rule of law while the proclamation of emergency is in operation. On December 3, 1971 the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India by a proclamation of emergency declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. While this proclamation of emergency was in operation, on June 25, 1975 by another proclamation of emergency issued under Article 352(1) of the Constitution the President of India declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbance. After the proclamation of emergency declared by reason of danger to internal security, on June 27, 1975, the Commissioner of Police, Greate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-27-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Bom94; 1975MhLJ404
ORDER1. A dialectical debate having somewhat far reaching consequence upon the legislative dynamic and the statutory dictates as contained in the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands( Ceiling on Holdings) Act. 1961 hereinafter called the act) is raised by the present petition.2. For the purpose of the present petition, the facts are few and are undisputed. Petitioner No,. 1 is the father and petitioner No. 2 is his son. The joint Hindu family of which petitioner No. 1 was the Karta held agricultural lands to the extent of 157 acres 19 gunthas at different villages, all located in tahsil Akot, district Akola, for which under The Act the ceiling area is 7800 acres. Petitioner No.2 Milind was born in the family on November 3, 1961 The family is governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law. 3. The Act came into force on January 26, 1962 and on that date the family of which the petitioner No. 1 was the Karta held land in excess of the ceiling area of 78 acres and was thus liable to file ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-05-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ751; 1976MhLJ31
ORDERShimpi, J.1. Applicant Yadaorao Nathuji Kokude, a resident of Tkidi, Tahail and District Bhandara, has filed this revision Application challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge; Bhandara, on 24th of September 1974 in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1974 where-under he set aside the order passed by thai Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara in favour of the applicant and directed thai the present non-applicants 2 and 3 were found to be in possession of the suit land on the date of the preliminary order with' in two months prior to the date of preliminary order and further directed the applicant not to disturb the possession of the non-applicants until they were law-Cully evicted from the suit lands.2. The facts in brief are as under:S. Noa. 101 and 102 totally admeasuring 12 acres 92 gunthas situated at village Parsodi belonged originally to one Chan-drabhagabai, who died sometimes in March 1971. During her lifetime Chandrabhagabai gifted these suit lands to Yogabhyas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-05-1975
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR500
Deshmukh, J.1. This was originally a revision application which is now permitted to be converted into a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the original complainant, Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, on whose complaint Criminal Case No. 279/CW of 1973 is pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petition seeks to challenge the legality and propriety of the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated October 30, 1974 directing production in Court of the customs statements of witnesses and the documents on which they might be intending to rely in order to enable the defence advocate to inspect them and take down short notes or copies thereof. The application is opposed.2. The prosecution pending before the learned Magistrate is one under Section 135(7) and 135(ft)(6) of the Customs Act, 1962. As we have pointed out earlier, it is a prosecution commencing on a private complaint by the Assistant Collector of Customs. By abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-18-1975
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR132
Joshi, J.1. His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded. At the outset, we are constrained to make one observation regarding the mode of recording evidence of such, a child witness. No doubt, following the head-note given by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan : 1952CriLJ547 , nowadays we find the Judges take the precaution of putting preliminary questions to ascertain whether the witness is in a position to distinguish between truth and falsehood. But they conveniently ignore the other caution repeatedly given that while recording the evidence of such a child witness it should invariably be in the form of questions and answers. This mode of recording the evidence is not only a airplay but gives an idea to the Court which takes down the deposition as well as to the appellate Court what exactly the question put was and what answer was given by the witness. From the frame of questions and the answers given one can make out how...
Tag this Judgment!