Mumbai Court February 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.
H.H.B. Gill Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR487
Simonds, J.1. This appeal which is brought from a judgment of the Federal Court of India dated December 11, 1046, raises questions of difficulty and general importance. They relate in the first place to the problem which has so often been debated in the Courts of India in regard to the meaning and effect of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the second place to the admissibility of evidence upon a charge of conspiracy.2. The nature of the case demands that the facts should be set out at some length.3. As a result of the judgment now under appeal the appellants H.H.B. Gill and A. Lahiri stand convicted for offences under Section 165 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.4. The appellant Gill joined the Indian Army Ordnance Corps in December, 1939. He was appointed Staff Captain in the Contracts Directorate from January, 1940, and in April, 1941, he was given the temporary rank of major as Deputy Assistant Director of Contracts at Calcutta. In this offic...
Emperor Vs. Ranchhodlal Hirabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR295
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question referred to this full bench is whether Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946 makes punishable the contravention of orders deemed to be orders made under the Act by virtue of the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. As it is well-known, the war emergency came to an end on April 1, 1946, and six months thereafter on September 30, 1946, the Defence of India Act and the rules made thereunder ceased to be operative, and all orders which were made under those rules would also have come to an end but for the Ordinance which was promulgated on September 25, 1946. Under that Ordinance power was given to the Central Government to issue orders in order to control the production, supply and distribution, etc. of essential commodities, and under Section 5 the orders which were made under the rules of the Defence of India Act were continued, and Section 8 of the Ordinance made penal the contravention of any order made or deemed to be made under Section 3 of that Ordinance...
Emperor Vs. Manju Hanumant Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR379
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of acquittal passed by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Honavar. Accused No. 1 was charged under Section 3 of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, and accused No. 2 under Section 6 of the same Act.2. The prosecution case was that accused No. 1 contracted marriage on or about May 17, 1947, with accused No. 2 when he had another wife living. It is to be borne in mind that the fact that accused No. 1 married accused No, 2 is not disputed or challenged by the defence, nor is it disputed or challenged that accused No. 1 has another wife living. The only question that falls for determination in this appeal is, whether accused No. 1 married accused No. 2 on May 17, 1947, or at least some time after the new Act came into force, which was on November 6, 1946. [His Lordship then discussed the evidence and proceeded:]3. We, therefore, feel that in view of this strong ci...
Emperor Vs. Krishnaji Vithal Kangutkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR293
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the accused who was tried with a jury by Mr. Justice Weston on the Original Criminal Side of this Court. The accused was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in that he attempted to commit murder of his father and brother by firing a gun at them. The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty under Section 307, and the learned Judge acquitted and discharged the accused under that section. But the jury brought in a unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge convict-ed him under that section, and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment. It is from this conviction and sentence that this revisional application has been preferred.2. The Government Pleader, in the first instance, contends that no criminal revision lies from an order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court in Sessions. Now, it is to be borne in mind that, till the Criminal Procedure Code w...
Mohamudkhan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ329
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants, Mohammad Khan, Abdulla Khan, Ibrahim and Imamshah were all convicted and each sentenced to undergo 15 days, 4 months and 6 months rigorous imprisonment, running consecutively, under S3.34.1,148 and 296, Penal Coda respectively by the First Class Magistrate, Malkapnr. In the same trial Abdul Razzak, the applicant in Criminal Revision No, 276 of 1947, was similarly convicted and sentenced. In appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, maintained the convictions but ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The applicants have all now come up in revision to this Court and it may here be added that their co-accused Bhikan,. Abdul Rauf and Rasulshah were acquitted in the trial Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. On the night of 20th September 1946, the Mahara of Dhamangaon, Malkapur taluq. Buldana district, took out their yearly Samapti procession and were proceeding by the customary route in front of the mosque when the...
Emperor Vs. Ranchhoddas Narottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR281
Jahagirdhar, J.1. This case raises an interesting question about the liability of the father under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to maintain his married daughter. The applicant before us had been ordered on March 11, 1943, by the Magistrate to pay maintenance to his wife and four children at the rate of Rs. 40 per month, that is Rs. 16 to his wife, the opponent before us, and Rs. 6 to each of his four children. The opponent applied to the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court,. Dadar, Bombay, for the enhancement of the amount of maintenance for herself and her children, in view of the fact that the applicant's salary is now increased. The opponent also made an application praying that the amount ordered to be paid in 1948 be reduced as the eldest daughter is now married. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the opponent and enhanced the amount of maintenance in respect of the opponent and her three children. He, however, refused to enhance the amount of maintenanc...
Treasurer of Charitable Endowments Vs. S.F.B. Tyabji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Bom349; (1948)50BOMLR240
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The facts leading up to this litigation may be briefly stated. On May 1, 1983, the plaintiff let to Fifi Frenais flat No. 4 in Candy House situated at Mandlik Road, Fort. On March 1, 1939, he let to her flat No. 2 in the same building. With regard to fiat No. 2 the terms of the tenancy were reduced to writing and the terms were that she was to be a monthly tenant at Rs. 155 per month with one month's notice ending with the calendar month given 'by either party to terminate the tenancy and the rent was to be paid in advance every month on or before the 10th of each month. The tenant also agreed not to sub-let or re-let the premises without written consent. Parties were agreed that the same terms of tenancy also applied to the letting of flat No. 4. On June 11, 1946, Fifi died. On November 6, 1946, Messrs. Section F. B. Tyabji & Co. wrote to the plaintiff stating tha...
Shripatrao Madhavrao Shinde Vs. Parvatibai Ganpatrao Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom252; (1949)51BOMLR162
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. In this appeal the question that arises for decision is the succession to certain lands which are governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, V of 1886. The facts briefly are these. One Madhavrao Shinde was the owner of these lands. On his death they devolved upon his two sons Shripatrao who is the plaintiff and Ganpatrao. Ganpatrao died leaving his widow Parvatibai who is defendant No. 1. Ganpatrao had a son Ramehandra who died on July 22, 1921, issueless and unmarried. On April 28, 1928, Bajirao was adopted by Parvatibai, and the question is whether by reason of the adoption Bajirao, defendant No. 2, is entitled to the watan lands.2. There can be no doubt that if succession was governed by the ordinary principles of Hindu law, in view of the recent decisions of the Privy Council, although on the death of Ramehandra the property would go to the next reversioner of Ganpatrao, viz. plaintiff, on the adoption of Bajirao on April 23, 1928, the property vested in the...
Emperor Vs. Bashan Madar Korbu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR290
Jahagirdhar, J.1. This is an application made under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the brother-in-law of the detenu Shaikhlal Shamsooddin Kotwal praying that the order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate of Sholapur on November 25, 1947, be set aside and that he be ordered to be released. The facts of the ease are briefly these:2. The detenue is a resident of Tadavale, in taluka Barsi, District Sholapur. He was arrested on November 22, 1947, at Tadavale, was brought to Sholapur and was kept in Sholapur jail from November 25, 1947, to December 2, 1947. It is the ease of the detenue that no order of any detention was shown to him at the time when he was arrested or when he was kept in Sholapur Jail. Then on December 2, 1947, he was removed to Yeravda Central Prison. About December 8, 1947, a copy of the notice of the grounds of detention under Section 3 of the Public Security Measures Act dated November 25, 1947, was served upon him. The notice, afte...
Goswami Shri Maganlalji Gordhanlalji Maharaj Vs. Goswami Shri Purshott ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom80; (1948)50BOMLR618
Coyajee, J.1. This matter is placed before me at the direction of the Court of Appeal pursuant to a remand made in this matter by their Lordships of the Privy Council.2. The facts of the case are set out in my judgment dated April 9, 1943. In that judgment I held that a parcel of the Tapti Valley Railway Company, Ltd., shares were held by Shri Rukshmani Vahuji as part of the estate of Shri Narsinglalji Maharaj, and that the said shares formed part of the joint family property in her possession. On a consideration of facts in that case arising on the evidence adduced before me I arrived at the conclusion that in those particular circumstances the said shares belonged to the reversioner, the plaintiff in the suit and I passed a decree in his favour for the payment of an amount equivalent to the value of the shares together with interest thereon.3. As I came to that conclusion I indicated that no question of adverse possession and of limitation survived for a decision.4. I had observed fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »