Mumbai Court April 1944 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Tribhuvandas Panchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR555
Lokur, J.1. The appellant and one Ishwarlal were tried by the Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad with the aid of assessors for offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Originally both the accused were charged under Section 6 read with Sections 3 and 4(a) of the said Act and the appellant was in the alternative charged under Section 4(b). It was alleged that, at the instance of accused No. 2 Ishwarlal and from the wooden patterns supplied by him, the appellant prepared in October, 1942, and early in November, 1942, in his iron foundry at Ahmedabad cast-iron bomb shells and their screw caps, knowing or having reason to believe that the shells would be used as containers of explosive substance and with intent by means thereof to cause unlawfully and maliciously explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury jo property in British India, and by making and supplying those containers, which were adapted for causing or aiding in causing an explosion with ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chavadappa Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom292; (1945)47BOMLR63
Divatia, J.1. After stating the facts of the case, the judgment proceeded: All the convicted accused have appealed to this Court, and the question is whether the accused who have confessed are guilty because of their confessions and production of property and the remaining accused guilty on the ground that they produced stolen property after having known or reason to believe that it was taken in dacoity. I will first deal with the confessions of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 7, because the prosecution relies on those confessions not only as against the confessing accused but also against the other accused who have been mentioned in them. As regards the confession of the first accused, it was made on February 14 before the Magistrate at Navalgund. On the 13th the Sub-Inspector took this accused as well as accused No, 3 to Navalgund and the confessions were made on the next day. It is stated by accused No. 1 in his confession that he along with several other accused went to Hiremannur for the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshav Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR42
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. We are unanimous in our opinions on the various questions which have been raised, and the judgment I am about to deliver is the judgment of this full bench.2. We have before us two petitions under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, of Mr. Keshav Govind Gokhale, who has been brought up from Belgaum Central Prison where he is under detention. From these petitions which are duly affirmed it appears that Mr. Gokhale is a pleader practising in the Courts of the District of Belgaum and is also a Member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. The following further facts, some of which appear in Mr. Gokhale's petitions, are not in dispute:(1) That the arrest was made under Rule 129 of the Defence of India Rules by a Sub-Inspector of Police at Nippani which is forty-four miles from Belgaum at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of August 9, 1942.(2) That Mr. Gokhale was on the day following conveyed to Belgaum Central Prison, where he was detained until the middle o...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Gokhale Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom212
Stone, C.J.1. We are unanimous in our opinions on the various questions which have been raised, and the judgment I am about to deliver is the judgment of this full bench. We have before us two petitions under Section 491, Criminal P.C., 1898, of Mr. Keshav Govind Gokhale, who has been brought up from Belgaum Central Prison where he is under detention. From these petitions which are duly affirmed it appears that Mr. Gokhale is a pleader practising in the Courts of the District of Belgaum and is also a Member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. The following further facts, some of which appear in Mr. Gokhale's petitions, are not in dispute: (1) That the arrest was made under Rule 129, Defence of India Rules, by a Sub-Inspector of Police at Nippani which is 44 miles from Belgaum at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of 9th August 1942. (2) That Mr. Gokhale was on the day following conveyed to Belgaum Central Prison, where he was detained until the middle of March 1943, being then transferred to N...
Tag this Judgment!New Citizen Bank of India Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom149; (1944)46BOMLR782
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla dated August 31, 1943, under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, ordering rectification of the appellant company's register. The facts are adequately stated in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. In this Court the appellant company has taken three points : first, that the directors had an absolute power to refuse a transfer ; secondly, that the appellant company had a lien on shares which were sought to be transferred and therefore they need not register any transfer ; thirdly, that no proper instrument of transfer was presented, in that the document presented was not duly stamped. In the Court below it appears that it was the second point which was particularly agitated. But the third point is in my opinion the short point in the case, which is vital i.e. that the petitioners (respondents) failed to comply with the requirements of Section 34, Sub-section (3), of the Indian Companies Act...
Tag this Judgment!MahomedhusseIn Daudbhai Vs. Collector of Broach and Panchmahals
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom157; (1944)46BOMLR925
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. These applications in revision arise out of an order passed by the District Judge of Broach and Panch Mahals in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 11 and 13 to 20 of 1940 and raise an important question as regards the jurisdiction of the District Court and the scope of the inquiry to be made under Section 6C of the Musalman Wakf Act (XLII of 1923) as amended by Bombay Act XVIII of 1935. In 1933 the Collector of Broach and Panch Mahals published a Notification, No. M.S.C. 44, dated August 24, 1933, giving a list of wakfs of the Dawoodi Bohfas in the Panch Mahals District. In respect of properties Nos. 17 to 23 in that list situate at Dohad, His Holiness the Mullajisaheb of the Dawoodi Bohras was shown as the mutawalli. Accordingly, notices were issued to him under Section 5 of the Act to submit statements of accounts. The statements of accounts were not, in fact, filed, and when similar notices were issued in 1938, the person who held a power-of-attorney for the Mullajis...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shaik Hasan Abdul Karim (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR566
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The two accused in this case, Shaik Hassan Abdul Karim and Akbarkhan Attamahomed, were tried by Mr. Justice Blagden and a special jury for the murder of a police constable named Nasiruddin on the night of December 25, 1942. The jury unanimously found both the accused guilty and the learned Judge sentenced both of them to death. The matter has come up before us on a certificate given by the learned Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent that there are certain misdirections or errors in the charge delivered by the learned Judge to the jury which in his opinion should be further considered by this Court. The following four points have been mentioned by the learned Advocate General in his certificate :(1) That the learned Judge did not point out to the jury with sufficient accuracy and detail the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, did not read the relevant sections of the Penal Code, and in explaining the law did not u...
Tag this Judgment!Navnitlal Chunilal Vs. Baburao (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom132; (1944)46BOMLR776
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Blagden dated December 17, 1943. The point raised is a short one, and is whether the acceptance of a payment after notice to quit waived the notice, as it is sometimes described, and in effect created a new tenancy.2. Now, it is necessary to say something with regard to relevant dates. It appears that in February of 1943 the landlords, who are the respondents to this appeal, were minded to get possession of these premises if they could, and under the supposition that the whole of the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, was valid and effectual, they applied to the Controller, and ultimately, after having gone to the Collector, they got a certificate saying that the premises were needed for their own occupation. That certificate is dated April 19, 1943. Accordingly, on the following day, April 20, they served a notice to quit on their tenant, the appellant to this appeal. No point turns on the validity of that...
Tag this Judgment!Pranlal Bhagwandas Vs. Chapsey Ghella
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom34; (1944)46BOMLR760
Chagla, J.1. This is a vendor-purchaser summons. By an agreement dated April 30, 1943, between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendants an immovable property belonging to the defendants situate at Lamington Road, Bombay, fox a price of Rs, 1,45,000. The material clauses of the agreement, With which I am concerned in this summons, are els. 5 and 10. Clause 5 says:The vendors shall make out a marketable title to the said land hereditaments and premises agreed to be sold. The vendors shall get in all outstanding estates and clear all defects in title at their own expense including all claims by way of sale, exchange, mortgage, gift, trust, inheritance, possession, lease, lien or otherwise. The vendors shall obtain an order of the Court for sale of this property on behalf of the minor Gangji Chapsey at theirown costs. Until such order is obtained the purchaser 'will not incur any costs for investigation of titl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Savlimiya Miyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR589
Divatia, J.1. After setting out the facts, the judgment proceeded: The prosecution had examined the Mamlatdar in the committing Magistrate's Court and he had produced certain correspondence to the effect that accused No. 2 was suspected of having committed several defalcations as the talati of Lambha. This Mamlatdar was not examined in the Sessions Court, and the Sub-Inspector stated in his evidence that the Mamlatdar was not in Ahmedabad when the trial was going on before the Sessions Court as he had gone to Bombay for training in rationing and that he would not be able to return for a week. It was only on the strength of' that evidence that the learned Sessions Judge brought on record the Mamlatdar's evidence before the committing Magistrate under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and he seems to have; done so readily because the defence advocates had no objection to its being brought on the record. Along with the evidence of the Mamlatdar the learned Judge admitted in evi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »