Mumbai Court May 1946 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.
Thiruvenkata Ramanuja Vs. Venkatacharlu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR405
Macmillan, J.1. Their Lordships address themselves in this appeal to the consideration of a controversy which in one form or another has agitated the Hindu religious community in the Presidency of Madras for upwards of two centuries. The main question between the parties relates to the right to regulate the conduct of the services in an important group of temples. To the understanding of the issue a short historical survey is essential.2. According to the Hindu creed the Deity manifests Himself in three aspects as Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver, and Siva, the Destroyer and Renovator. Those who are devoted to the worship of the Deity in His aspect as Vishnu are known as Vaishnavas and there are many temples, especially in Southern India, dedicated to the worship of Vishnu and known as Vaishnavite temples. The earliest Scriptures, dating from 2,500 years ago, are the Sanskrit Vedas or hymns, held sacred by all Hindus A further series of sacred writings known as Prabandhams, c...
Mohammad Mohy-ud-dIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR740
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing an application under Section 491 of the Criminal. Procedure Code for the release of one Burhan-ud-Din. Bnnhnn-ud-Din is a member of the ruling family of Chitral, an Indian State adjoining the North-West Frontier Province. The Ruler of Chitral has in recent times been recognised by His Majesty the King Emperor as a Ruler of an Indian State. Bnrhan-ud-Din is thus admittedly not a British subject 5 he, however, became an Indian Commissioned Officer in 1936 and was attached to the 2/10 Balueh Regiment of the Indian Army in which he attained the rank of Captain. In September-October, 1945, he was suspected of having committed offences under Sections 121 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code; and, pending investigation and disposal of these charges, he was kept in military custody according to the usage of the service. A general court-martial for the trial of Burhan-ud-Din was constit...
King Emperor Vs. Vimlabai Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR423
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur made on September 29, 1944. The order was made by the High Court in purported exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which enables High Courts to take action in the nature of habeas corpus. The order directed that the second respondent, Purushottam Yeshwant Deshpande, (hereinafter called 'the detenu'), should be set at liberty forthwith on the ground that his detention was illegal. In granting special leave to appeal, the Board imposed the two following conditions: (1) That the detenu should not in any event be re-arrested in respect of the matters to which the appeal relates, and (2) That the petitioner should pay the costs as between solicitor and client incurred by the respondents both in opposing the petition and in the appeal.2. At the outset counsel for the respondents contended that no appeal was competent. That such a c...
Thakur Jagannath Baksh Singh Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR467
Wright, J.1. The appellant, who is the taluqdar of Bhawanshahpur, brought his action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sultanpur, Oudh, claiming a declaration that the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, is either ultra vires or not intra vires of the Provincial Legislature, either in its entirety or at least as regards the provisions, about 42 in number, scheduled to the complaint. His claim failed before the Judge; he then appealed to the Federal Court of India, which dismissed the appeal but granted leave to appeal to this Board.2. The appellant is the direct descendant of Babu Sitla Baksh Singh, who was grantee of a sanad from the Governor General after the Indian Mutiny of 1857. By this sanad the Crown granted to the appellant's predecessor-in-title the full proprietary rights, the permanent heritable and transferable rights in the ancestral estate which were confirmed by the Oudh Estates Act (No. 1 of 1869). That Act contains entries of the name of the appellant's predecessor in l...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›