Mumbai Court July 1947 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. Narayan Ramchandra Jarag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR151
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This confirmation case and appeal arise from the sentence of death passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Poona against the appellant. The appellant and another were charged in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 109 respectively. The prosecution case was that on or about the night between August 25 and 26, 1946, the appellant intentionally caused the death of one Yeshwant Sapre by stabbing him with a knife and thus made himself liable to be punished under Section 302 and the case against the other person was that on the same day and about the same time and place he abetted the appellant in the com mission of the said offence of murder. The case against both the accused was tried with the aid of jurors. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty in regard to the charge against accused No. 2. The learned Judge agreed with that verdict and acquitted the sai...
Vellayan Chettiar Vs. Province of Madras
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR794
Lord Simonds, J.1. This appeal, which is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, raises a question of some importance upon Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit in which the appeal is brought was instituted by two plaintiffs, Al. Ar. Vellayan Chettiar and Rao Bahadur, D.A.P., R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar against the respondents the Government of the Province of Madras and the Municipal Council of Karaikudi claiming to have set aside the decision of the Appellate Survey Officer in regard to certain land in Karaikudi village by declaring that such land belongs to them with other appropriate relief.3. The first plaintiff died while this appeal was pending and is represented by the third appellant Al. Ar. Kalairaja.4. The decision of the Appellate Survey Officer having been given on January 19, 1935, notice was on June 30, 1936, given on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 only to the Collec...
Brijlal Ramjilal Vs. Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR556
Du Parcq, J.1. On July 17, 1935, the two appellants, four of the five respondents, and one other person who is now represented by his heir, the fifth respondent entered into a deed of partnership. The partnership business was 'that of acting as the managing agents and selling agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd.' and was to be carried on 'at Indore or at such other place or places as the partners shall or may from time to time agree upon.' An arbitration clause in the deed provided for the reference of disputes to arbitration 'in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force ' So far as appears from the record, the business of the partnership was always carried on at Indore.2. By the end of 1940 there were disputes between the partners which appear to have become the subject of public controversy, and on December 17, 1940, the seven partners referred their differences to the a...
Randhi Appalaswami Vs. Randhi Suryanarayanamurti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR628
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated Apil 24, 1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmun-dry dated November 1, 1937.2. The parties are members of a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought on December 10, 1935, by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were then minors, by one Krishnamurti their maternal uncle and next friend, against the appellant, who was their father by his first marriage, and respondent No. 8 who was the son of the appellant by his second marriage.3. The questions which arise are (1) whether the suit was for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and (2) whether the property specified in schedule 1 to the written statement of the appellant is his separate property or is joint family property belonging to him and respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In the view their Lord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›