Mumbai Court November 1942 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. Banubai Ardeshir Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom150; (1943)45BOMLR281
Broomfield, J.1. This case comes for consideration by a full bench on a certificate from the Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent.2. Two accused persons Banubai Ardeshir Irani alias Laxmibai and Motiram Chaitram Kohli, were tried by Mr. Justice N.J. Wadia and a common jury at the Third Sessions of 1941. The charges against them were :-First :-That you on or about October 22, 1939, at Bombay imported into. British India from Persia, a country outside India, a girl named Sarwarbai under twenty-one years of age, with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person and aided and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 366B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the High Court.Secondly :-That you art or about October 22, 1939, at Bombay obtained possession of a girl named Sarwarbai under eighteen years of age with intent that the said Sarwa...
G.i.P. Railway Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Bhikhaji Merwanji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom341; (1943)45BOMLR676
Chagla, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated in Bombay and is also registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (Bom. VII of 1925). The business of the company is banking business. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner company until his services were dispensed with in the manner I shall presently indicate.2. On June 10, 1941, the respondent was served by the petitioner with a charge sheet in which certain charges were made against the respondent and he was suspended from service as from that date. The respondent refused to give any explanation with reference to these charges and by his letter of June 25, 1941, he informed the petitioner that he declined to answer the charges. On July 7, 1941, the respondent made an application to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting the Registrar to be permitted to refer his case to arbitration under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. In this letter of July 7, 1941, the respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›