Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '327539',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '327539',
		(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '327539',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '327539',
	(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/327539/imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '327539',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '327539',
		(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '327539',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '327539',
	(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/327539/imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), section 263, clauses 4 and 5 - dissent of court from verdict of jurors. - 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 respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '327539',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '327539',
		(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '327539',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '327539',
	(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/327539/imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '327539',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '327539',
		(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '327539',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '327539',
	(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/327539/imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. this case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of section 263 of the criminal procedure code. these clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the high court. there being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. this decision is not in conflict with our decision in imperatrix v. hari ghanu, where we held that government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '327539',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '327539',
		(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '327539',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '327539',
	(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/327539/imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p>',
	(int) 1 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 2
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '327539',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '327539',
		(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Imperatrix Vs Bhawani Bin Panduji and Sakharam Bin Khundoji - Citation 327539 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '327539',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'imperatrix',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 263, Clauses 4 and 5 - Dissent of Court from verdict of jurors. - 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  respondent, viz., S, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances  Held, It is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. S alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. -  These clauses are not very clearly drawn;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-02-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1878)ILR2Bom525',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '327539',
	(int) 1 => 'imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/327539/imperatrix-vs-sakharam-khundoji'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.<p>',
	(int) 1 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 2
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Mumbai
Decided On	Feb-14-1878
Judge	Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.
Reported in	(1878)ILR2Bom525
Appellant	imperatrix
Respondent	Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji

imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji - Court Judgment