Mumbai Court July 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.
Holia Budhoo Gowara Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ465
1. Holia, son of Budhoo Gowara of mauza Gondegaon was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, on a charge of murder of his wife Mt. Yamuni. He has been found guilty under Section 304, Part I, Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. He has appealed against this conviction and sentence. There is also a counter-appeal by the Provincial Government that the accused should have been convicted on the charge of murder under Section 302, Penal Code. be to appeals are disposed of by this judgment.2. Holia lived with his wife, Mt. Yamuni in Gondegaon. On 27th November 1947 the accused assaulted Mt. Yamuni in the house and killed her and threw the spear with which he had assaulted her in a well from where it was later recovered by the police. The parents of Mt. Yamuni had come to stay with Holia about two days before this occurrence and they wanted that Yamuni should be sent with them to their house. The accused was not willing to send his wife to her parents and on ...
Goverdhandas Kanhayalal Bhate Vs. Ranchhoddas Bhikharilal Shet Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom271; (1949)51BOMLR230
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor against the order dismissing Ins application to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 89. The facts of the case are briefly these. The plaintiff obtained a mortgage decree and filed Darkhast No. 110 of 1944 to execute the decree. That decree was transferred to the Collector for execution. On May 11, 1946, the decree-holder purchased the property for Rs. 18,250. On June 3, 1946, the defendant-judgment-debtor applied to the Collector to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90, and on June 8, 1946, the judgment-debtor entered into an agreement with one Dhondiram for the sale of the property which had been sold in execution. One of the conditions was that Dhondiram was to deposit Its. 19,500 in Court. This amount was deposited by Dhondiram on June 8, 1946, on behalf of the judgment-debtor. Then the judgment-debtor made the present application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 89.2. The decree-holder conte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›