Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Appellant: emperor · Respondent: p a · Page 1 of about 10 results (0.015 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Aug 08 1947

Emperor Vs. P.A. Joshi

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P.A. Joshi

Decided on : Aug-08-1947

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1948)50BOMLR160

Sen, J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Nasik, who has submitted the proceedings in criminal case No. 192 of 1946 in the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, wherein one...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 26 1931

Emperor Vs. P.X. D'souza

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P.X. D'souza

Decided on : Nov-26-1931

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR286

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate Third Court, for an offence under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention ofGambling Act. The accused...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 24 1925

Emperor Vs. P.B. Ponde

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P.B. Ponde

Decided on : Mar-24-1925

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR612

Coyajee, J.1. The petitioners in this case ask this Court to revise an order made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on February 20,1925, authorising their detention in the custody of the police till March 6, and...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 15 1925

Emperor Vs. P.B. Ponde (No. 2)

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P.B. Ponde (No. 2)

Decided on : May-15-1925

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR1031

Crump, J.1. The witness Shankar Vaman Chaskar was called yesterday and has given his opinion as to whether the writing on certain documents is the writing of accused No 2. The question has been raised as...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 09 1942

Emperor Vs. K.P.K. Shetty

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : K.P.K. Shetty

Decided on : Sep-09-1942

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR69

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This revision application raises a short point under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1935, and the rules made thereunder.2. The applicant is the manager of the Regional Motors, Ltd., who are...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 17 1908

Emperor Vs. Tribhuvandas P. Mangrolevala

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : Tribhuvandas P. Mangrolevala

Decided on : Aug-17-1908

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR801

Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, convicting the appellant of two offences one under Section 124A and the other under Section 153A of the Indian Penal...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 28 1911

Emperor Vs. F.P. Fernandez

Court : Mumbai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : F.P. Fernandez

Decided on : Sep-28-1911

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR1187; 12Ind.Cas.971

RUSSELL, J.We think the Magistrate has taken a perfectly correct view of the accused's conduct. He distributed broadcast this insinuation against the directors of the Company-knowing that the complainant and other directors charged no fees for...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 01 1915

Emperor Vs. P.R.S. Muthia Chetti

Court : Chennai

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P.R.S. Muthia Chetti

Decided on : Dec-01-1915

Subject : Miscellaneous

Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.638

Abdur Rahim, J.1. The accused in this case is a Nattukottai Chetty; and as stated by himself, be is a fairly well-to-do man. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for an...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 27 1933

Emperor Vs. P., a

Court : Kolkata

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P., a

Decided on : Jul-27-1933

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1934Cal272

1. On the facts of the case we are not inclined to accept the recommendation made by the learned District Judge for suspension of the pleader concerned. The facts of the case as also the decision...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 13 1920

Emperor Vs. P.U. Desouza

Court : Allahabad

Appellant : Emperor

Respondent : P.U. Desouza

Decided on : Jan-13-1920

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1920)ILR42All272

Tudball, J.1. The applicant in this case has been convicted of causing death by a rash and negligent act under Section 304A. of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial