Mumbai Court September 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.
Emperor Vs. Sumatibai Wasudeo Bachuwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR102
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicant under Rule 39(6) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The offence under Rule 39, so far as relevant for the present purpose, is : under Sub-rule (1) being in possession of any document containing any prejudicial report, and under sub-r. (2) having on any premises in a person's occupation or under his control any document containing any prejudicial report.2. Now, the facts are not in dispute. Certain documents containing prejudicial reports were found in a box in the house occupied by the applicant and her husband. When the house was raided the husband was out and the applicant, i.e. the wife, produced all the family keys with one of which the box could be opened. In addition to the prejudicial reports there were some letters in the box addressed to the wife. The husband was convicted of being in possession of prejudicial matter, and though he appealed, the appeal was not pressed, and h...
Tulsiram Motiram Marwadi Vs. Shankar Nana Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom313; (1944)46BOMLR621
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding the application of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, 1879, to a transaction of 1902, on which the Courts below have differed. The property and the parties come from the district of Kolaba. The property in suit originally belonged to three brothers Budhya, Ganpat and Nana.They executed a sale-deed in favour of one Mathuralal Girdhardas for Rs. 2,000 on May 29, 1902, purporting to convey it to him absolutely. On the same day the vendee Mathuralal passed a document agreeing to reconvey the property to the vendors on repayment of Rs. 2,000 and allowed them to remain in possession as his tenants. Mathuralal owed some money to the plaintiff and after his death the plaintiff obtained a money decree in Suit No. 32 of 1929 against his adopted son, his daughter and the executor of his will. In execution of that decree in darkhast No. 346 of 1935 the property in suit was attached and put to auction. The plaintiff...
Meghaji Mohanji Thakkar Vs. Anant Pandurang Chhatre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1943
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR274
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal raises an important question regarding succession to the stridhan of a maiden governed by Vyavahara Mayukha, the competing claimants being her father's brother and the son of her father's predecessor. The facts are not disputed. The property in suit belonged to one Vishnu who bequeathed it to his daughter's daughter Ahilya. On Vishnu's death the property devolved on Ahilya and she died unmarried, leaving behind her her father's brother Anna and her father's deceased brother's son Anant. Anna and Anant were already separated, and after Ahilya's death, Anna took possession of her property and paid its Municipal and other taxes. In execution of a decree against Anna the property was sold and was purchased by the defendant at the auction sale on March 30,1937. Before the defendant took possession of the property as the auction purchaser, Anant filed this suit on the basis that he and Anna were both the heirs of Ahilya, that he had a half share in the property...
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. the Central Bank of India Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom184; (1944)46BOMLR70
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order of acquittal, and the Court does not readily entertain such applications. For one reason, because under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, we cannot turn an order of aquittal into an order of conviction, and for another reason, because generally, if an order of acquittal seems open to criticism, it is for Government to appeal. In this case the prosecution was under Section 133(3) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the allegation in substance was that the Central Bank and its officers and auditors, who are the accused, had issued a false balance sheet. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the balance-sheet did not make full disclosure of book debts and the provision made to meet bad and doubtful debts, but that the omission to make those disclosures was justified by a notification issued by the Central Government on January 17, 1937, under Section 151 of the Indian Companies Act, ...
Emperor Vs. Kantilal Mangaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR54
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question that arises in this case is, whether Ordinance XIX of 1943 is a valid Ordinance. It was promulgated on June 5, 1943, to repeal Ordinance II of 1942, which established Special Criminal Courts in India for trial of certain classes of offences. Ordinance II of 1942 was held to be intra vires by the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Shreekant Pandurang Ketkar : (1943)45BOMLR323 , though the Calcutta High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in Banoari Lal v. Emperor : AIR1943Cal285 as regards Sections 5, 10, 14 and 16. Eventually the Federal Court of India held in Emperor v. Banoari Lal that Sections 5, 10 and 16 of the Ordinance were ultra vires. This decision was given on June 4, 1943. The Governor General deliberated overnight and promulgated Ordinance XIX of 1943 the next day. The new Ordinance accepted the decision of the Federal Court in so far as it repealed Ordinance II of 1942. It also proceeded to terminate pending proceedings; but it went further to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›