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

1955 Supreme(Bom) 72

J.C.SHAH
Dwarkadas Jivraj – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner is the owner of House No. 27, Picket Cross Road, Princess Street, Bombay. A Sanitary Inspector attached to the Bombay Municipality inspected on 8-2-1954 the passage on the ground floor of that building. Thereafter notices were served upon the petitioner and one Kodumal Rewachand under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 3 of 1888.

By the notices the petitioner and Kodumal Rewachand were asked to abate the nuisance committed in the passage by removing articles such as chairs, benches and tables kept in the passage on the ground floor. The notices were not complied with.

The Sanitary Inspector again visited the premises on 11-2-1954 and he found the articles in the same position in which they were on 8-2-1954. Thereafter a complaint was filed against the petitioner and the said Kodumal charging them with having committed offences under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. He contended that house No. 27, Picket Cross Road, Princess Street, had been purchased by him and at the time of the purchase a part of the passage had been let out by the previous owner to the second accus























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