Mumbai Court July 1945 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.
Komalsing Kuwarsing Vs. Krishnabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom304; (1946)48BOMLR83
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises a question of considerable importance with regard to the construction of the Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925) and the rules thereunder framed by the G. I. P. Railway Company. The facts are not in dispute. The defendant's brother Kunjalsing who was in the service of the G. I. P. Railway was a subscriber to the Railway Provident Fund. The plaintiff Krishnabai is his widow. On July 9, 1924, he made a, declaration in the prescribed form stating that in the event of his death the defendant would be entitled to receive payment of his provident fund holding, including additional benefits, if any, and appointing the defendant himself to be the executor of his will as regards the provident fund only. Kunjalsing died on June 1, 1941, when the amount to his credit was nearly Rs. 10,000, The defendant applied for a succession certificate in respect of that amount in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge alt Bhusawal and it was granted to him despite the op...
Ali Mahomed Adamalli Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR116
Porter, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated December 2, 1941, by which the appellant was fined Rs. 1,000 for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926) in failing to obey an order made by the Acting Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes on September 4, 1939. The order had directed the appellant to furnish a statement of particulars of wakf property under Section 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 (IXLII of 1923), as amended by the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1935 (Bom. XVIII of 1935).2. Under that section it is provided that every mutawalli shall furnish to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property of which he is a mutawalli is situated a statement containing certain particulars. 3. By Section 5 every mutawalli is ordered to prepare and furnish to the Court to which such statement was furnished a full and true statement of accounts, containing certain prescribed particulars, with...
Malak Khan Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR132
Porter, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature alt Lahore dated October 18, 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Jhelum dated July 1, 1944, and confirming the sentence of death passed upon him.2. Special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by an Order in Council dated March 21, 1945.3. The main legal point for decision in this appeal is whether in an appeal from a conviction of murder, the High Count is entitled to accept, as corroboration of the guilt of the accused, evidence (given in the Sessions Court where the charge was one of murder and robbery) which was material to both charges but failed to convince the Sessions Court of the guilt of the accused of the crime of robbery with the result that he was acquitted of that charge,4. Akbar Khan was a lambardar of the village of Bahl, and he and his brother-in-law Nur Khan were waylaid on January 6, 1944, on their way back from the village ...
Chainchal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR284
Goddard, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from judgment of the High Court of Lahore dismissing an appeal by the appellant from a conviction for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge of Amritsar. The question of law which arises and was the ground on which special leave was given is whether the previous statement of a witness for the prosecution made before the committing Magistrate was properly admitted at the trial under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While contending; that the statement was properly admitted, the Crown submits that even if it ought to have been rejected, there was ample evidence justifying the conviction and that accordingly no grave or substantial injustice has been done. Their Lordships have already stated that they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed and now proceed to give their reasons.2. The appellant was charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge along with thirteen others with the murder of one S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›