Mumbai Court November 1948 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.
The North-west Frontier Province Vs. Suraj NaraIn Anand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR425
Du Parcq, J.1. On March 18, 1948, a judgment was delivered by the-late Lord Thankerton, in which their Lordships stated the reasons which led them to the conclusion that they should humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed. Their Lordships do not propose now to repeat what was then said. It suffices to say that the decision of the Board wag given on the assumption, which then appeared to be justified, and had not, indeed, been questioned, that the Police Rules of 1937, to which the judgment refers, had become operative in the year 1938, and at some date prior to April 25, 1938, when the respondent was dismissed from the force.2. Subsequently to the delivery of the judgment, and before their Lordships had tendered their advice to His Majesty, the respondent submitted a petition wherein he prayed that their Lordships might reconsider their decision, mainly on the ground that it had been ascertained that the Police Rules of 1937 were in fact printed and published on Ap...
C.P. Bannerjee Vs. B.S. Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom182; (1949)51BOMLR122
Bhagwati, J.1. In this matter I had delivered a judgment on October 6, 1948, but, after I did so, my attention was drawn to the fact that the Bombay Legislature had simultaneously with the enactment of Bombay Act XLIV of 1948 also enacted Bombay Act XLI of 1948 called the Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act, 1948. This necessitated a further 'argument and in the result I quashed the judgment which I had dictated on October 6, 1948, and put down the matter for further argument. The matter has been thereafter fully argued before me by Mr. Palkhiwalla appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. M.M. Desai appearing for the defendant and by Mr. B.J. Divan whom I appointed to argue the matter before me per amicus curiae.2. The question that falls to be determined by me in this matter is whether this Court has jurisdiction to further try and determine the suit, having entertained it at a time when according to the law as it then stood it had jurisdiction to entertain the same.3. The plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›