SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Bom) 3

H.K.CHAINANI, R.S.BAVDEKAR
Haji Mahomed Haji Alli Mahomed – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Judgment

FACTS

1. One Haji Mahomed Haji Alli Mahomed (accused No. 1) who was one of the trustees of a trust, which owned a building in Narayan Dhuru Street, put up an unauthorised construction on the ground floor of the building near the stair-case and let this portion to Kassam Ismail (complainant). The complainants case was that the premises were let to him on his agreeing to pay Rs. 12 as rent and Rs. 7 for the consumption of electricity. It was also the complainants case that when the premises were let to him, accused No. 1, gave him an electric connection from his own meter. The electric connection was cut off on or about March 1, 1951. The complainant then filed a complaint against the appellant and an electrician, who had actually cut off the connection under the instructions of accused No. 1, under Section 426 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code.

After recording the evidence of the complainant and two other tenants of the same building, the trying Magistrate framed two charges against the accused. The first charge was under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The second charge was under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. Accuse











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top