Mumbai Court June 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.
Paul Engel Vs. Edith Engel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom15; (1943)45BOMLR921
Blagden, J.1. The parties in this suit are respectively husband and wife, and the claim is by the husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the wife's adultery with a man whose identity is unknown to the husband and (because she refuses to disclose it) to the Court. The suit is not defended, and there is a satisfactory affidavit of service.2. It is clearly proved that the wife did commit adultery in Bombay on the night of February 2 last, and I only took time to consider my judgment because I felt a little doubt as to the appropriate form of decree in view of the peculiar status of the parties.3. They are by faith and race Jews. Their marriage took place at Vienna on March 4, 1936, at which date they were Austrian subjects.4. Not long afterwards, their native land was over-run by the adjoining barbarians, and in the course of the subsequent persecution of their race they lost their nationality and have not subsequently acquired any other one.5. They left Austria, and after s...
Emperor Vs. Bhikha Gober
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR884
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal by accused No. 1 against his conviction of the offence of murder by the Sessions Judge of Kaira. The other accused was acquitted.2. There is no doubt that a woman named Bai Vakhat, the wife of the complainant, was murdered in a field in the afternoon of October 1, 1942, The only question is whether the appellant was guilty of the murder, as the learned Sessions Judge held. The assessors were of opinion that the case was not proved. There were two eye-witnesses to the offence,-Balu (exhibit 9) and Jamal (exhibit 10)-, and the learned Judge and all the assessors have disbelieved those eye-witnesses. Judging merely from the depositions, I feel myself some doubt whether the learned Judge and assessors were right in disbelieving that evidence, particularly the evidence of Balu, who says that he narrated what he saw to Rama the same night and to the complainant the next day, and both the witnesses corroborate his statement. Balu and Jamal, accord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›