Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-19-1973
Reported in : [1975]45CompCas16(Bom)
Vaidya, J. 1. This is an application under section 561 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant is a public limited company by name, Esso Standard Inc., registered in the State of Delaware, U.S.A., and having its branch office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay-20. On February 23, 1972, respondent No. 1, Udharam Bhagwanda Japanwalla, as a constituted Attorney of Venus Polish, filed a complaint in the court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, alleging that, (1) the applicant, Esso Standard company which was described in the complaint as accused No. 1, (2) one Z. A. Merchant, an officer of the company who was described as accused No. 2, (3) one R. K. Gupta, a sales officer of the company, described as accused No. 3, (4) and R. D. Vyas, sales manager of the company, described as accused No. 4, and (5) C.B. Thomas, general manager of the company, described as accused No. 5, committed offences under sections 420, 417 read with sections 34, 109 and 114 of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-13-1973
Reported in : 1974CriLJ514; 1974MhLJ34
ORDERShah, J.1. This criminal revision application filed by the accused challenges the order dated December 14, 1972, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolaba, confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, granting the complainant's -application requesting the Court to visit and inspect the alleged construction work carried on by the accused.2. The complainant is the Controller of Unauthorised Construction, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Thana. On October 25, 1972, he filed a private complaint with the Magistrate against the accused making the following allegations. The accused who is the owner and occupant of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 116/2 plus 5A in village Kalamboli, Taluka Panvel, undertook and carried out the unauthorised development of the said land without the permission of the competent authority. This unauthorised development was detected by the officers of the CIDCO in an incomplete state on December 22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-01-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Bom215; ILR1974Bom929; 1973MhLJ728
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application has been filed by the original plaintiff against an order dated 30-3-1972 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon, in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1971 allowing the application filed by the defendant for stay of the suit under Section 3 of the Bombay Execution of Decrees (temporary Postponement ) Act, 1959, therein after referred to as the Act. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount and for future maintenance and claimed a decree for Rs. 2700/- as arrears of maintenance ad future maintenance at the rate of Rs 75/- per month. The defendant filed an application dated 10-2-1972 under Section 3 of the Act for stay of the suit on the grounds stated in the application, According to the defendant, the present suit is a suit for money. The defendant earns his livelihood wholly by agriculture carried on within the limits of the State of Bombay and he ordinarily engages personally in agriculture with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-14-1973
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR249
Bhole, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, in a case where the three accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 161 and 162, Indian Penal Code as well as of the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused No. 1 was a Junior Inspector of Industries working in Amalner Division with his head-quarters at Amalner. His duty was to execute the provisions of the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 with the help of the manual assistant, who is accused No. 2, and the peon, who is accused No. 3. The manual assistant is appointed to assist the Inspector so that he can facilitate handling of the standards in weights and measures and to help the Inspector in attesting and stamping the weights and measures. Under the scheme of the Act the traders have to get certified as well as stamped their scales, weights and measur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1973
Reported in : (1973)IILLJ558Bom; 1974MhLJ83
Kantawala, C.J.1. Damodar Shantaram, Nadkarni, the petitioner, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of Vimadalal, J., dated July 3, 1969, whereby he dismissed the petition that was filed by the petitioner. At the material time the petitioner was employed as a tutor in Chemical Pathology in the Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Topiwala National Medical College and he worked in that capacity until he was dismissed from service in October, 1964. In the month of July, 1963 certain irregularities were suspected in the affairs of the Stores Department of the Pathology Department and investigation was started and, in the course of the investigation, certain statements were recorded including that of the petitioner. After completion of the preliminary enquiry on December 28, 1963, G. W. Shiveshwarkar, Officer on Special Duty, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold a departmental enquiry. On January 4, 1964, the petitioner was suspended. On or after February 4, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Bom88; (1974)76BOMLR304
Nathwani, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal by the original petitioner-husband against the decree of Mr. Justice Gatne in appeal confirming the decree of the City Civil Court. Bombay, dismissing his petition for divorce and raises a point of importance and interest arising out of judicial separation, namely, whether desertion by a spouse on which ground a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the original petitioner spouse under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) continues unless the original respondent spouse makes efforts to resume cohabitation and constitutes a wrong which would disentitle the spouse so failing to get the relief of divorce on ground of non-resumption of cohabitation, and involves construction of Sections 10(2), 13(1A), 23(1)(a) of the Act.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is the husband and was married to the respondent wife according to Hindu FDIC rites on Dec. 16, 1956 at Bombay. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-19-1973
Reported in : 1974CriLJ162; 1973MhLJ800
Padhye, J.1. These are appeals by two of the three accused who were tried for offences under Sections 205, 205 and 109, 419, 419 read with 109, 465, 465 and 109, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution of the three accused was on the basis of a complaint made by Shri R. K. Karandikar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola on 12-8-1969 under Section 476 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It arose out of Criminal case against one Deolal Kisan under Section 85(1)(2) and (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. One Deolal Kisan was arrested on 25-10-1968 in connection with an offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 85(1)(2) and (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. He was produced before Shri L. G. Deshpande, Second Joint Civil Judge, (Junior Division), First Class, Akola and was remanded to custody till 2-11-1968. On 1-11-1968 an application was made before that Court for releasing the offender Deolal Kisan on bail and along with that ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-26-1973
Reported in : 1974CriLJ82; 1973MhLJ572
Bhojraj, J.1. The appellant Sitaram son of Bajirao Kumre, aged about 23 years of Pimpaleaon talua Hinganghat, district Wardha. stood charged before the Sessions Judee, Wardha. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Saraswati wife of Gulab on November 19, 1970, at about 8 A. M. at Pimpalgaon.2. The Sessions Judge held the charge as proved. The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.3. The version of the prosecution is as follows : The prosecutrix Saraswati (P. W. 2) is a married woman, aged 16 years. Her parents and brother Ishwar (P. W. 1) are residents of Pimpalsaon. Saraswati was married three years before August 1971 and was staying at her husband's place. She visited her father's Place in the month of November 1970. The accused is a resident of Pimpalgaon.4. On November 19, 1970, at about 7 a. m.. Saraswati went to her father's field at Pimpalgaon. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-27-1973
Reported in : [1974]94ITR616(Bom)
Deshpande, J. 1. Facts giving rise to this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are few and simple, though the case appears to involve great hardship and consequently calls for close scrutiny and analysis. The petitioner (assessee) was carrying on business of transporting iced fishes, mangoes and other goods by sea from Konkan ports to Bombay. He was the owner of a launch 'Lakshmi'. On 24th April, 1961, the Central Excise authorities seized 4,999 biscuits of gold weighing 10 tolas each from the said vessel. The Collector of Central Excise investigated the case and ultimately confiscated the gold so seized by order dated September 18, 1961. The assessee and some others were then tried before the Special Judicial and Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947. At the conclusion of the trial the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-29-1973
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR270
Joshi, J.1. The petitioner (original complainant) whose complaint has been dismissed, mainly on the ground of want of jurisdiction and being bad in law for misjoinder of charges and persons, by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, who consequently discharged the accused, has come in revision.2. It appears that the complainant, a merchant of status and repute, was the member of Shri Cutchi Visha Osval Deravasi Jain Mahajan, whereas accused No. 1 was its President. Accused No. 3 was the Honorary Secretary and accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were the members. There was also another Mahajan, namely, Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal Sthanakvasi Jain Mahajan. The office bearers of the Mahajans of the two communities referred to above, jointly issued an appeal to the members of the communities on January 11, 1972, that more than 650 persons be not fed at the receptions of the marriage ceremonies. This appeal had no legal sanctity. The complainant celebrated his daughter's marriage on May 28...
Tag this Judgment!