Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Banoomian Pirbhai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 1909
Judge
Reported in(1910)12BOMLR225
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBanoomian Pirbhai
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....under the act, before he can be charged for any offence under it. it is the duty of such person to obey the rules, and in case of his disobedience he becomes liable to conviction, whether there was any order or not from the inspector calling upon him to obey the rules. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st .....order1. this court does not agree with the magistrate in his view of the law that an order or notice from the inspector of factories is necessary before a person who has not conformed to the rules made under the act can be charged for any offence under it. it is the duty of such person to obey the rules, and in case of his disobedience he becomes liable to conviction whether there was any order or not from the inspector calling upon him to obey the rules. in this particular case, however, on the merits the court does not see sufficient reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. the court disallows the appeal on this latter ground only.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Court does not agree with the Magistrate in his view of the law that an order or notice from the Inspector of Factories is necessary before a person who has not conformed to the rules made under the Act can be charged for any offence under it. It is the duty of such person to obey the rules, and in case of his disobedience he becomes liable to conviction whether there was any order or not from the Inspector calling upon him to obey the rules. In this particular case, however, on the merits the Court does not see sufficient reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The Court disallows the appeal on this latter ground only.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //