Mumbai Court June 1944 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. Jerry D'Sena
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR597
Sen, J.1. This is an application by the Government of Bombay for revision of an order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Bombay, discharging the opponent, Private Jerry D'Sena, No. 3034, accused of theft and praying that the order be set aside on the ground that the accused, who is subject to militarylaw has been erroneously discharged and that the provisions of rules made under Section 549 of theCriminal Procedure Code, 1898, by the Government of India have not been complied with.2. The accused was alleged to have committed the theft on February 18, 1942, and he was arrested in January, 1943. He was put up for trial and there were several adjournments ' for want of time' from February 3, 1943, up to August 18, 1943. Thereafter there were more adjournments and on September 20 the case was fixed for hearing peremptorily on September 27, 1943 ' to enable the prosecution to write to the military '. Thereafter three more adjournments were given and on October 11, 1943, the Mag...
Ratanshah Kavasji Vs. Keki Behramsha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom147; (1944)46BOMLR808
Sen, J.1. These are two applications in revision, the first against an order made on June 3, 1943, by the First Class Magistrate, Bulsar, permitting the Police Prosecutor under Section 495 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, to withdraw the case filed by the petitioner-complainant against six accused under Sections 452, 323, 504, 147 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and discharging the said accused, and the second against an order made on July 26, 1943, by the same Magistrate dismissing under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code a subsequent complaint made by the petitioner on the same facts.2. The petitioner made a complaint to the police on February 16, 1943, alleging that the offences had taken place on February 12, 1943. On February 17, 1943, the opponents filed a cross-complaint against the complainant and some others. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the accused in the first complaint on February 24, 1943, and the learned Magistrate took cogniz...
Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Hormusji Jamshedji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom113; (1944)46BOMLR798
Divatia, J.1. This is an application by the defendant for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decree of this Court in Second Appeal No. 717 of 1940. The decree in so far as it adversely affects the defendant directs him to hand over to the plaintiff vacant possession of two Survey Nos. 223 and 225 after removing the superstructures standing thereon. The substructures consist of a ginning factory and its appurtenances. The decree of this Court has reversed the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit, and the only question is whether the defendant is entitled to leave on the ground that the decree of this Court involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards under paragraph 2 of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is conceded by the defendant that the case does not fall under the first paragraph of that section, but Tie contends that although the suit was valued by the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›