Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2633; I(2007)DMC83
ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Smt. Deepali Jape-Ansingkar, for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. B. G. Deshmukh, for the respondent.2. The applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 40/1994, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First class, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged in the application by the present applicant/wife that she was married with the respondent/husband, 10-11 years prior to the filling of the said application at village Banwas, taluka : Palam, District : Parbhani. The marriage was blissful for about three years. Thereafter, she was being ill-treated and reached to her mother's house by the respondent at Gangakhed before 1993. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed, after hearing the parties, by the Judgment and order dated 08-02-1996 awarded an amount of Rs. 300/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the present applicant and amount of Rs. 100/- was awa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)2137; 2002BomCR(Cri)209; 2001CriLJ3927
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Alleged Contemner No. 1 Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, is present in the Court, as directed by us vide our order dated 10-7-2001. By the said order, we have granted exemption from personal appearance to alleged Contemner No. 2 Nishikant Anant Bhalerao for today.2. The factual matrix in which this contempt petition arises in brief is as under.On 11-2-1997, Mr. B.R. Chaudhary, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, made a Reference, through the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, to the Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side), Bombay, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that action be taken against Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, for committing the offence of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act.The circumstances in which the said Reference was made were as under.There was a Summary Criminal Case, bearing No. 347 of 1994 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj71
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati releasing in favour of the respondent a pair of bullocks and the bullock-cart which were seized by the Forest Officers in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). The contention of the petitioners is that the said pair of bullocks and a bullock-cart were seized by the Forest Officer under the reasonable belief that a forest offence has been committed by utilising the said bullock-cart and the bullocks for illegal transportation of the wooden logs without obtaining necessary documentation from the forest authorities for the purpose of such transportation.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perusal of the reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1996)DMC469
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this application filed by applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is prayed that the proceedings initiated by non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar and registered Misc. Criminal Case No. 75 of 1995 be quashed and set aside. This prayer is made by the applicant on the ground that prior to the initiation of the proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has already initiated proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and the application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the non-applicant only to harass the applicant.2. The applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar (for short, the 'husband') married the non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda (for short, the 'wife') on 20.6.1991 and the marriage between the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR159
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded] : Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected counsel to address us on law points at. the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first, law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnam Singh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1322; 1971MhLJ172
Padhye, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the criminal complaints Nos. 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, all of 1969 and/or criminal proceedings pending before the 23rd Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay by an appropriate writ, order or direction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution and/or Under Section 561-A and/or Under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The criminal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate at Bombay which are sought to be quashed arise out of five complaints lodged by the Opponent No. 1 against the present petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business under the name of Messrs. Siku Industries, Industrial Estate, Kamptee Road, Nagpur and the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the petitioner No. 1. The Opponent No. 1 is an Inspector in the Office of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1958CriLJ1144
ORDERGokhale, J.1. (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded;)Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected Counsel to address us on law points at the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnamsingh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legality of the ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR265; (1986)88BOMLR403
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in the alternative a revision petition against the order dated 9th April 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay raises an interesting question about interpretation of Sec. 87 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Trade Mark Act)2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be stated as follow :The petitioners are partners of Eupharma Laboratories, which is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture of the medicinal goods. Respondents No. 1 Lalitkumar is the Company Secretary of Pfizer Incorporated of U.S.A., a public limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies. Act, 1913.The respondent on behalf of Pfizer Incorporated filed a criminal complaint case before the trial Magistrate on 22nd March 1982 alleging that the present petitioners have committed an offence punishable under sections 78 and 79 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR612
Malvankar, J.1. This is an application by Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Ltd., under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order regarding the disposal of property passed in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1970 and Criminal Revision Application No. 320 of 1970, by this Court and for restoration of possession of the property to 'the applicant. It arises this way:2. The applicant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 carrying on business inter alia of hire purchase of vehicles. The applicant alleged that they were the owners of a vehicle viz. 'Dodge Model B6 D300-133' petrol chassis, with four years of the value of Rs. 24,219.10, supplied to them by M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay, under Sales Invoice dated May 2, 1968. Under a hire purchase agreement entered into by respondent No. 1, the vehicle was put in his possession. The said agreement dated May 13, 1968 provided that in the event of respondent No. 1 paying the initial hire charges ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. I have had the privilege of going through the erudite exposition of an arguable point of law which merits the depth of articulation as is done by my brother Judges Kanade and Thipsay. The point of law required to be decided merits enunciation of settled principles of interpretation of statutes for reading a clear provision as per its own terms, reading it along with every other provision in the chapter in which it appears, reading the statute as a whole and deciphering the intention of the legislature that propelled the enactment given the state of affairs that prevailed before the enactment, the mischief that was apparent and the mode in which the legislature sought to remedy it. The 'heyden's rule' or the 'mischief rule', which is the well settled principle of law, must be present to the mind of any interpretor of such enactment and which has been present to the mind of my brother Judges and must not be lost sight of.The crime problem is the overdue debt a society pays for tolerat...
Tag this Judgment!