Mumbai Court September 1934 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Babaji Gore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR16
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision which comes before the Court in the following circumstances. The present applicant was charged jointly with accused No. 2, who was his first wife and who has recently died, with the murder of a woman called Tulsa, who was the second wife of the applicant, accused No. 1, so that the charge was under, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was inquired into by the City Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar, who discharged the accused. Against that order of discharge, the complainant, who was the uncle of the deceased woman, applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar, and the Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and directed the accused to be tried in the Sessions Court. From that order this application is made.2. On the application for a rule, it appeared to the bench which heard the application that, whether or not the order of the Sessions Judge was right on the merits, the order was contrary ...
Ramchandra Babaji Gore Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom137; 155Ind.Cas.101
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision which comes before the Court in the following circumstances. The present applicant was charged jointly with accused No. 2, who was his first wife and who has recently died, with the murder of a woman called Tulsa, who was the second wife of the applicant, accused No. 1, so that the charge was under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The matter was inquired into by the City Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar, who discharged the accused. Against that order of discharge, the complainant, who was the uncle of the deceased woman, applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar, and the Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and directed the accused to be tried in the Sessions Court. From that order this application is made. On the application for a Rule, it appeared to the Bench which heard the application that, whether or not the order of the Sessions Judge was right on the merits, the order was contrary to the ruling of th...
Brijbhukandas Damodardas Vs. Ghashiram Mulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom124; (1935)37BOMLR1; 155Ind.Cas.12
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. The question referred to a full bench is, 'whether it is competent to an adult coparcener of a Hindu Mitakshara family to appoint by will or otherwise a trustee, guardian or manager of the coparcenary property of a minor coparcener during his minority ?' The facts, which gave rise to the reference are that there was an adult member of a joint family, his coparcenary being a minor son and a minor nephew, and the question is whether on the death of the adult he. can appoint a guardian or manager of the coparcenary property. The question should, I think, be confined to the case of an only adult coparcener, because there could be no suggestion but that, if there were surviving adult coparceners, the deceased coparcener could not appoint a guardian of the joint property. The question has been referred to a full bench, because of a difference of opinion in this Court between the decision in Harilal Bapuji v. Bai Mani I.L.R(1905) 29 Bom. 351 : 7 Bom. L.R. 255 and M...
Nemtulla Tyeballi Vs. Safiabu Allibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom208; (1935)37BOMLR82
Murphy, J.1. This appeal arises out of regular civil suit No. 191 of 1915, which has had a somewhat chequered career. It was an administration suit, filed in 1915, for the administration of the estate of one Tyeballi, who died in 1912, and his father Alibhai, who died in October, 1909. The suit went on, and a preliminary decree was passed in March, 1924. There was an appeal against that decree which was heard by Marten C. J. and Crump J. The appeal was lodged by the present defendant No. 7, who is now one of the respondents before us, and it was dismissed. But cross-objections had been put in by defendant No, 3 and these were considered by the learned Chief Justice, who said :-As regards the cross-objections, they are based on the allegation that defendant No. 3, Namtulla, never assigned her interest to defendant No, 7, Safiabu. The objections bear date March 16, 1925, but do not seem to have been formally admitted till February 17, 1927. It is consequently rather startling to find thi...
Emperor Vs. Keshavrao Bhilaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1120
Murphy, J.1. The accused was convicted under Sections 408, 467 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced for each offence to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The facts alleged against him are that, he, being a supervisor of a society called the Shirpur Supervising Union, which, we understand, is connected with the co-operative movement, on April 11,1934, misappropriated and converted to his own use Rs. 2, which represented the pay of a woman, who swept and cleaned his office, and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code; and further that at the same time and date he forged or caused to be affixed to the receipt of the said sweeper woman a thumb impression, which is not of that person and thereby committed a forgery punishable under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, and finally that he defrauded the Union by making a false debit entry to the effect that Laxmibai had been paid Rs. 2 when no such ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›