Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Arjun Ambo Kathodi

Emperor vs Arjun Ambo Kathodi

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Dec 02, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/328321

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Reference No. 100 of 1909
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 109, 123 and 397-Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 379-Concurrent sentences -Consecutive sentences.;The accused was proceeded against under Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sentenced under Section 123 of the Code to rigorous imprisonment for nine...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Arjun Ambo Kathodi

Legal References

Reported In
(1910)12BOMLR129

Excerpt

.....scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. 1. we must accept the district magistrate's view in this reference, which is in accordance with the ruling this court in queen empress v. tulshya bahiru (1898) unr. cr. c. 970, with v. emperor v. muthttkomaran ilr (1903) 27 mad. 525 and joghi kannigan v. emperor ilr (1903) mad. 525.2. we must, therefore, make the sentences concurrent in the present case. record and proceeding to be returned with the order.

Full Judgment

1. We must accept the District Magistrate's view in this reference, which is in accordance with the ruling this Court in Queen Empress v. Tulshya Bahiru (1898) Unr. Cr. C. 970, with v. Emperor v. Muthttkomaran ILR (1903) 27 Mad. 525 and Joghi Kannigan v. Emperor ILR (1903) Mad. 525.

2. We must, therefore, make the sentences concurrent in the present case. Record and proceeding to be returned with the order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial