Mumbai Court June 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.
Laxman Ganesh Shukla Vs. Baliram Lahanu Patil.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR853
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who brought a suit for the recovery of a piece of land alleging that he became the owner of the eastern part of the said land under a Court auction held in March 1939 and that he purchased the western part of it by a private sale in May 1939, the original owner being one Punju Totaram. As according to him he obtained possession of the whole land and was dispossessed thereafter by the defendant, he brought the present suit. The defendant's case was that Punju Totaram had already parted with his title in his favour by a sale in 1936 and alternatively that both the sales relied on by the plaintiff were bogus and collusive. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had not proved his title nor his possession and dispossession by the defendant within 12 years prior to the suit and, therefore, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff to the District Court, the appellant relied on a new ground, namely, that the plea of the defendant as regards...
Emperor Vs. J.C. D'Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom151; (1946)48BOMLR754
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the order of acquittal made by Mr. T. S. Vyas and dated June 20> 1945. The charge with which the accused was brought before the learned Magistrate is in. these terms:That you being the manager in the firm of Chunilal Mulchand & Co., having its shop at Waterloo Mansion, Mayo Road, Bombay, were on January 23, 1945, found to have in possession of 3,343 1/2 yards of cloth bearing November 43 Tex-mark and 402 yards of cloth bearing T. C. B. June 1944-Mark Exhibits A and A-l respectively and thus contravened cls. 14(J) (6) and 15-A of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn(Control) Order, 1948, which contravention is punishable under i. 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules and within the cognizance of this Court.2. The learned Government Pleader has stated at the outset that the point involved is a technical one and that it is with regard to whether a sufficient sanction has been given within the true meaning of Clause 23 of the Order. Cla...
Ramanugrah Singh Vs. the King Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR768
Thankerton, J.1. There seems to be nothing in the High Court judgment that shows that no reasonable jury could have come to the conclusion on the facts that this jury found.]2. To sum up I say that the appeal should be dismissed, because even if the right test had been applied, the High Court would have still reached the verdict that they did. Secondly, the jury's finding cannot be supported on the evidence. It was at least perverse of the jury to say that at least culpable homicide was not proved, when the shot was fired at a distance of only 67 feet. Lastly, if your Lordships do not accept my construction of Section 307, or are of the opinion that the wrong test; has been applied, then your Lordships should send it back to the High Court with directions as to the proper test to be applied under Section 307.John Beaumont, J.3. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna made on February 21, 1925, convicting the appellant upon a charge of m...
Natha Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR225
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from two judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated June 7, 1945, which dismissed the appeals of the appellants, and confirmed the sentences of death passed on. them, by the judgment, and order, dated February 9, 1945, of the Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Their Lordships have already announced that they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed, and they now give their reasons.2. The ground upon which special leave to appeal was granted was the allegation that evidence that the appellants had committed a murder other than that with which they were charged was wrongly admitted, and this has been the principal point argued on their behalf.3. The appellants were tried and convicted on a charge of having murdered one Karnail Singh on September 19, 1944. There were four alleged eye-witnesses of the murder, namely, the approver Qadir, who said that he had been with the appellant, Surain Singh, an uncle, Mt. Gurmej ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›