Mumbai Court March 1943 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.
Taherally Mahomedally Kajiji Vs. Chanabasappa Mallappa Warad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom226; (1943)45BOMLR422
Chagla, J.1. One Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel is detained in His Majesty's Central Prison at Yerawada by the Government of Bombay under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The plaintiffs have filed this suit and they wish Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel to be examined as a witness in this case; and they have made an application to me under Section 35 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, for the production of this person in Court so that he could give evidence in this case.2. The Advocate General on behalf of the Government of Bombay contends that the Prisoners Act has no application and the Court has no jurisdiction to make this order. MR. Taraporewalla on behalf of the applicants, the plaintiffs in this case, argues that Section 35 is wide enough to cover the case not only of a person confined to a prison by an order of the Court but also of a person confined to a prison by an executive order. Mr. Taraporewalla contends that Section 35 does not lay down th...
Emperor Vs. Kamal Dattatraya Sohoni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom304; (1943)45BOMLR581
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum of a revision application preferred before him by the father of a girl, who was accused No. 2, in an offence charged under the Defence of India Rules.2. In the case in question three girls and five boys were charged under Rule 56(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, with taking out a procession without the permission of the District Magistrate. Two of the girls and one of the boys apologised, and they were dealt with under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Four of the boys, who were accused Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8, were convicted and sentenced to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. The other girl, accused No. 2, to whom this reference relates, was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. One of the boys, accused No. 8, appealed to the Sessions Court of Belgaum, and the learned Sessions Judge reduced his sentence to two months' rigorous i...
Sadashiv Mahadeo Walhekar Vs. Mahomed Yakub Mahomed Saidulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom404; (1943)45BOMLR877
Sen, J.1. This application arises out of a darkhast in which the only point raised was that the Small Cause Court at Poona which passed the decree under execution had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that, therefore, the decree being a nullity it was not capable of being executed. The decree was transferred to the Court of the Extra Joint Subordinate Judge Poona, for execution, and that Court proceeded with the execution under Order XXI, Rule 7. The Court held that it had no power to question the jurisdiction of the Poona Small Cause Court in entertaining the suit and making a decree; and it relied for this proposition on Hari Govind v. Narsingrao Konherrao I.L.R. (1913) 38 Bom. 194 and Jagannath v. Shivnarayan : AIR1937Bom19 . In those cases it had been held that the Court to which a decree had been transferred for execution under Order XXI, Rule 7, could not go behind the decree and question the jurisdiction of the Court which had passed it.2. On the question whether a Court execu...
Emperor Vs. Shankarbhai Kashibhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR572
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by the accused who was convicted of an offence under Section 5(a) of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1941, under the penal section, which is Section 7.2. The Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance was published on December 20, 1941, under Section 72 in the ninth schedule of the Government of India Act of 1935. The Ordinance provides in Section 3 that it shall apply to all employment under the Crown and to any employment or class of employment which the Central Government or a Provincial Government, being of opinion that such employment or class of employment is essential for securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of war, or for maintaining supplies or services necessary to the life of the community, may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be an employment or class of employment to which the Ordinance appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›