Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-01-1981
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR148; (1981)83BOMLR362
B.J. Rele, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner on an apprehension that he would be arrested on an accusation for having committed offences under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and in respect of which offences the Delhi Police Establishment, C.B.I., Delhi, have filed and F.I.R. on 6th March 1981 under their C.R. No. 2/81-SIU-I/SIC/CBI/SPE/New Delhi.2. The petitioner is the Chairman of Industrial Consulting Bureau Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'I.C.B. Ltd.'), having its registered office at Bombay and branch at Delhi. He is also the Advisor of a company by name Harshadray Pvt. Ltd. This company also has its registered office at Bombay and has its office at New Delhi. These two companies are specifically mentioned in this order, although the petitioner has set out in his petition the company in which he is the Managing Director and a number of companies in which he is the Director...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-05-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Bom234
1. These First Appeals are directed against the decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit relating to accounts in respect of the partnership business etc. First Appeal No, 174 of 1980 is filed by the original plaintiff; whereas First Appeal No. 176 of 1980 is filed by original defendant No. 11. The interest of both of them are, however, identical except, perhaps, for the fact that the other defendants in the suit claim to have an additional defence against defendant No. 11 which defence is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. Both the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties hereafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. When special reference is to be made to the case of original defendant No. 11 he will be specially referred to as defendant No. 11. Before stating the respective case of the parties I may refer to certain admitted facts of the case.2. The plaintiff, defendant No. 11 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-07-1981
Reported in : (1981)24CTR(Bom)159
M. N. Chandurkar, J. - In the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1958-59, the assessee was disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 out of the total salary amount of Rs. 10,200 which was claimed to be deductible by the assessee, the AAC took the view that the ITO failed to apply his mind to some important aspects relating to the claim for payment of salary and he held that the assessee had not been able to clarify the issues as to the service rendered or as to how the payments were allocated. He, therefore, set aside the assessment with a direction that the ITO should complete the proceedings de novo.2. In appeal by the assessee the IT Appl. Tribunal considered this aspect of the order as amounting to enhancement and according to the Tribunal, the AAC was not entitled to set aside the order of the ITO and ask him to deal with the assessment afresh thus disallowing even that portion of the claim which the ITO had allowed in the first year. However, the operative finding given by the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-1981
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR190; 1981CriLJ767; 1981MhLJ487
Bharucha, J.1. In these three writ petitions the challenges are directed towards orders of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (now referred to as 'the Act'). The intended detenus under these orders are not in detention.2. The learned Advocate-General, appearing of behalf of the State of Maharashtra, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions. It was that the habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is exercisable only to examine the legality of a detention when there is a detention and in no other case. The Advocate-General submitted that an order of detention cannot be successfully challenged if it has not been executed. In his submission, though the prayers in the petitions seek writs other than the writ of habeas corpus, the petitions are in substance habeas corpus petitions.3. The Advocate-General cited in this regard the judgment of the Federal Court in Em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-1981
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR1; (1981)83BOMLR553; 1982CriLJ1025
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of framing charges against the petitioners dated October 13, 1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. In this Criminal Application the question that falls for determination is whether the impugned order of framing of charges complies with the requirements prescribed by Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding to frame charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The charges which are framed against the petitioners and original accused No. 5 one Shankar Vithal Savardekar are on five counts in all the present petitioners are charged for having agreed between August 1978 and illegal acts, i.e., offences of causing physical harm to one Shri Naval Godrej, Kersi Godrej and others and those acts of causing harm to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-1981
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR223
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. The petitioner was working as a supervisor (vigilence) In the City Establishment of the Conservancy Branch of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Bombay. The work of removing and transport of refuse in the suburbs for the period from June 1, 1968 to October 31, 1968 was entrusted to the contractors Messers Ismail N. Halai. The contractors appointed Messrs. Western Bombay Traders, as their sub-contractors for this work. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's son Yoginder Kaul was the proprietor of this firm. It appears that the Corporation discovered that Yoginder was only a college going boy aged 20, and the entire contract was carried out by the petitioner himself. It was also found that the petitioner had manoeuvred to obtain sub-contract in the name of his son though he himself conducted the said business. It was also discovered that the petitioner had influenced some officers of the Corporation in different parts connected with removal of this re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-29-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Bom283; 1981(83)ARBLR312(Bom); 1982(1)BomCR80
1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant, the first wife, challenging the order of acquittal dated May 28, 1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, acquitting both the respondents for having committed offences punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 834 of 1976.2. The appeal raises a question of considerable importance affecting a large section of the Indian Society, that is, members of the Scheduled Castes who have chosen to convert themselves into the Buddhist faith. It involves a question of recognition in law of the customary form of marriage different from the form of marriage generally recognised under the Hindu Law.2-A. Since this appeal involves recognition of a different form of marriage widely followed and recognised amongst the members of the Buddhist community (converted from Scheduled Castes), it is necessary to refer to the averments in the complaint of the complainant as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1981
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR117
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. Even though this petition by the original accused was filed for quashing of the complaint and for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri and also for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 427 of 1979, subsequent events have confined the scope of this petition to a limited points i.e. as to whether the unwarned complaint by the complainant is fatal to the prosecution i.e. whether non-examination of the complainant on oath........merely amounts irregularity under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or whether it amounts to illegality and goes to the root of the matter. In order to appreciate the question which has arisen during the course of lengthy arguments on both sided, it may be convenient to briefly refer to the averments in the complaint as well as prosecution case presented in this criminal application in this Court.2. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-09-1981
Reported in : 1981MhLJ345
Deshpande, C.J.1. This reference to the Full Bench raises a question of some importance as to the true interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. The Appellant is convicted for an offence of murder under section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court relied, amongst others, on the post-mortem notes. The doctor, who held the post-mortem and prepared the notes, was not examined at the trial. The defence layer had earlier indicated that he was not disputing the genuineness thereof in response to a query under sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the Code. The trial Judge dispensed with its formal proof and 'read the report' in evidence. In the cause of the hearing of the appeal before the Division Bench, the learned defence advocate contended that the report cannot be relied on without the evidence of the doctor and Section 294 is not intended to dispense with proofs of such documents. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-09-1981
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR278
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This reference to the Full Bench raises a question of some importance as to the true interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure of 1973. The Appellant is convicted for an offence of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court relied, amongst others, on the postmortem notes. The doctor, who held the post-mortem and prepared the notes,, was not examined at the trial. The defence lawyer had earlier indicated that he was not disputing the genuineness thereof in response to a query under Sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the Code. The trial Judge dispensed with its; formal proof and 'read the report' in evidence. In the course of the hearing of the appeal before the Division Bench, the learned defence advocate contended that the report cannot be relied on without the evidence of the doctor and Section 294 is not intended to dispense with proofs of such documents. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this...
Tag this Judgment!