Mumbai Court April 1948 Judgments
Sudhir Kumar Dutt Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR21
Fazl Ali, J.1. These are appeals under Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act by three persons who along with one Captain Mathams were tried by a Special Tribunal constituted under Ordinance XXIX of 1943 on a number of charges which have been summarised in the judgment under appeal as follows :-(a) Against all: that they were parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government of India (s. 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).(b) Against S.K. Dutt (appellant No. 1) and J.K. Bose (appellant No. 2): that they had attempted to cheat the Government of India; and against R.W. Mathams and P.C. Ghosh (appellant No. 3): that they had abetted S.K. Dutt and J.K. Bose (Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Code);(c) Against R.W. Mathams and P.C. Ghosh: that they had accepted bribes of Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 12,000 respectively; and against S.K. Dutt and J.K. Bose : that they had paid these bribes (Section 420 read with Section 109 and Section 161 and 101/109 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Neelangouda Limbangouda Vs. Ujjangouda Shankargouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR682
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated November 12, 1942, affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Dharwar dated June 26, 1940.2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration inter alia that he is the validly adopted son of one Limbangouda deceased, and has thereby acquired the right to recover possession of one-half share in the suit properties which are in the possession of defendant-respondent No. 1. The factum of adoption though raised in the issues was abandoned at an early stage, and does not arise for decision.3. Only two questions remain for decision before the Board, these being:(1) Has the appellant by virtue of his adoption acquired the right to recover possession of one-half share in the suit properties'?(2) Had defendant-respondent No. 2, the adoptive mother of the appellant, lost her right to adopt to her husband in view of the mainte...
Tag this Judgment!Albert West Meads Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR664
Morton, J.1. This is an appeal, by leave of the Federal Court of India, against the judgment of the Federal Court dated November 20, 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated April 24, 1944, whereby the said High Court dismissed the appellant's petition praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for his release from imprisonment. The appellant had been sentenced by Field General Court-Martial to be' cashiered and to undergo two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant was, at the date of his conviction by Court-Martial, an officer of His Majesty's Forces, holding the temporary rank of Major in the Royal Engineers. He had enlisted in the United Kingdom in October, 1939, and had subsequently been commissioned and posted to India in the Royal Engineers in 1940. At the time of the events which gave rise to his trial by Court-Martial, the appellant was attached to a unit of the Indian Engineers. He remained...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Atmaram Narayan Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR576
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana, by which he convicted the accused under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946, read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10.2. Applicant No. 1 along with three others were tried by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana. The applicant was charged with having married accused No. 2 while the first marriage was subsisting. Accused No. 3 was the father of the applicant and accused No, 4 was the brother-in-law of accused No. 2. The father of the applicant and the brother-in-law of accused No. 2 were charged with having aided and abetted in the solemnisation of the marriage. The learned Magistrate convicted all the four accused, and there was an appeal from his decision to the Court of Session, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. From that de...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanchand Hirachand Vs. D.R. Pradhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom93; (1948)50BOMLR614
Tendolkar, J.1. These are several petitions presented by different parties for writs of certiorari in respect of orders of requisition passed under Ordinance No. V of 1947, being the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947. A common question of law of considerable importance arises in these petitions, namely, whether the Governor of Bombay had any authority to promulgate the Ordinance, and, therefore, my learned brother Coyajee J. directed that notice should be given to the Dominion of India, and the Advocate General of India has appeared before me on behalf of the Dominion of India. I decided to try this question as a preliminary issue in these matters and I have heard parties thereon. The matter arises in this way:2. Ordinance No. V of 1947 is made under the authority conferred on the Provincial Legislature to enact laws with respect to requisition of land by a notification of the Governor General of India being the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No, F311-47-C. & ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: MoinuddIn Abdullamia Koreishi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom86; (1948)50BOMLR579
Sen, J.1. This application is made by one Moinnuddin Abdullamia Koreishi under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, against the order of detention made against him on February 19, 1948, by the District Magistrate of Ahmedabad. That order was made under Section 2(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, and stated that whereas the said District Magistrate was satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, the maintenance of public order and the tranquillity of Ahmedabad City, he directed the said Moinnuddin Abdullamia Koreishi to be detained. On February 25, 1948, the District Magistrate specified the grounds of the order and the particulars required to be supplied under Section 8 of the Act to the detenu. The material part of that statement is as follows:You being an active member of the Muslim National Guards organization in Ahmedabad City and in furtherance of the objects of this organization have been provoking and p...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Abdul Razaq Vs. Sheikh Ali Bakhsh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR661
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated July 12, 1944, which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Commercial Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated June 28, 1941.2. Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by the High Court on the ground that substantial questions of law were involved. The only question of law which appears to arise is whether the father of respondent No. 2, who was mutwalli of a wakf, had power to appoint respondent No. 2 as his successor. The respondents have not appeared on the appeal but counsel for the appellant has placed before the Board the relevant arguments on both sides.3. The facts giving rise to the appeal can be stated shortly. In the year 1855 one Sheikh Mohammad Taqi made a will by which, so far as relevant, he gave one-third of his property in charity and appointed Qutab-ud-Din as his executor. In or about the year 1872 Qutab-ud-Din received a sum of Rs. 1,66,683-...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Peter D'souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR574
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The case referred to us to this full bench raises a very short question of construction of Section 43 of the Abkari Act. Section 43 of the Act before it was amended contained the penal provision in the following term :Shall, on conviction, be punished for each such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.' The amendment altered the penal provision to read as follows:Shall, on conviction, be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000:Provided that in the absence of special reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than Rs. 500. 2. Now, it is contended by the Government Pleader that, inasmuch as the word ''or' has been replaced by 'and' the sentence for the first offence has...
Tag this Judgment!Somabhai Shanabai Patel Vs. Narandas Zaverdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom308; (1949)51BOMLR461
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a civil revisional application from an order made by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad. The applicant made an application that a suit which was pending before the learned Judge should be transferred to the Court set up by the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947, under Section 19 of that Act and that application was rejected by the learned Judge.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The opponent filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad, on July 24, 1946, claiming from the petitioner Rs. 29,999 as a debt due at the foot of accounts subsisting between him and the petitioner. This debt was alleged to have been incurred between the dates January 20, 1945, and December 15, 1945. On July 9, 1947, the petitioner made an application to the Court for transfer of his suit to the Court under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, and. the question that has been argued before us by Mr. Patel is that the learned Judge was ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangibai Gulabchand Vs. Suganchand Bhikamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR660
Normand, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay reversing a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Thana. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff (now respondent No. ]) is entitled as an adopted son to a half share and partition of certain joint family property in the Thana district, Bombay. The only question now in issue is whether the adoption of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2, the widow of one Bhikamchand, a member of the joint family, is valid. The Subordinate Judge held it invalid because it was made without the consent either of the adopter's deceased husband or of the nearest male member of his family, his brother Gulabchand, whose heirs are the present appellants. The High Court held that the adoption was valid notwithstanding the absence of these consents.2. The joint family are Marwari Jains of the Visa-Oswal community. The family migrated some generations ago from Jodhpur State to the Thana district. The two brothers, Gulabh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »