Mumbai Court September 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.
G.B. Ghatge Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom226; 1949CriLJ789
Chainani, J.1. This is an application in revision by one G. 6. Ghatge, who is the Principal of the Hume High School, Victoria Gardens Road, Bombay, against his conviction under B. 823, Penal Code, and the sentence of fine of Be, 1 imposed on him.2. The complainant is one Abdul Jafiar Ismail Sheikh, a boy of about 16 years of age, who was a student in the 6th standard in the Hume High School, of which the accused applicant was the Principal. On 6th October 1947, in the morning the applicant was conducting 4th standard class. He then found that the complainant had been driven out of his class by Mr. Saraf, who was then teaching Algebra to the students in the 6th standard. The applicant enquired from Mr. Saraf and was informed by him that the complainant had misbehaved in the class. There is some dispute with regard to the nature of the misbehaviour, bat that is not material for the purposes of this case. The applicant then gave some strokes with a cane to the complainant on his body. The...
In Re: Rana Birpal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR108
Weston, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, made on behalf of Rana Birpal Singh who is now under detention in the Central Mental Hospital, Yeravda. Birpal Singh was the Ruler of Bhajji, one of the Simla Hill States, for a number of years up to the year 1940, and it is claimed that thereafter he continued He jure to be the Ruler of that State. In September 1940 he was detained in the Ripon Hospital, Simla, under warrant bearing the signature of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India, issued under the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818. Since that time he has remained under detention. In the year 1941 he was removed from Simla to the Mental Hospital at Lahore under a further warrant issued under the same Regulation, and in that year an Ordinance was promulgated to remove doubts as to the validity of the detention in Mental Hospitals of persons on warrants issued under the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation. In the year 194...
Rana Birpal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom161; 1949CriLJ591
Weston, J.1. This is-an application under .S. 491, Criminal P. 0., 189S, made on behalf of Eana Birpal Singh who is now under detention in the Central Mental Hospital) Yeravda. Birpal Singh was the Ruler of Bhajji, one of the Simla Hill States, for a number of years up to the year 1940, and it is claimed that thereafter he continued de jure to be the Ruler of that State, In September 1940 he was detained in the Bipon Hospital, Simla, undec warrant bearing the signature of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India, issued under the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818. Since that time he has remained under detention, In the year 1941 he was removed from Simla to the Mental Hospital at Lahore under a further warrant issued under the same Regulation, and in that year an Ordinance was promulgated to remove doubts as to the validity of the detention in Mental Hospitals of persons on warrants issued under the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation. In the year 1943, a habeas corpus ap...
Sudkya Ramji Vs. Mahammed Issak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Bom236; (1950)52BOMLR123
Bavdekar, J.1. Respondent 1 in this appeal had sued the appellant and others in Suit No. 10 of 1938 and obtained a decree for possession of the suit land after removing the house of the appellant, the father of respondents 2 to 4 and respondent 5. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that the defendants were his tenants, but when in the year 1937 he filed a suit, they denied the tenancy and claimed that they were in adverse possession of the land as owners. The plaintiff said that consequently he did not wish to keep the defendants as tenants and had filed the suit for possession for rent and for damages for three years before the date of the suit. The trail Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession and also for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 66 before the date of the suit and future mesne profits from the date of the suit till recovery of possession. This decree was reversed by the appellate Court, but it was again restored by the Hig...
Shyama Rajaram Pardhan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ669
1. The appellant, Shyama was convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 and to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392, Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, who convicted and sentenced his co-appellant Mt. Sita to undergo 9 months rigorous imprisonment under 8.411, ibid. With this appeal will be considered the reference made under Section 374, Criminal P, 0., for the confirmation of the death sentenoe passed on Shyama.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. The deceased Mt. Mahagi, who lived at Madni with her grandson Balkrishna (p, w. 23), worked as a day labourer and used to collect head-loads of firewood from the village waste along the sides of the nala which passes between Madni and Amgaon where the appellants, who were also labourers, resided. She used to wear the silver sari (Art. c) and coarse silver patlyas (Art. d) and was wearing them on 10th February 1948 when the appellant Shyama called her to the village waste to c...
The Province of Bombay Vs. Western India Automobile Association
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom141; (1949)51BOMLR58
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajce ordering the issue of a writ of prohibition against the Industrial Tribunal set up by the Government of Bombay. It seems that a dispute between the Western India Automobile Association and its workers started about November 1946, and on November 9, 1946, the President of the Western India Automobile Association Staff Union served a notice upon the President of the Association setting out various demands of the employees. On December 4, 1946, the President of the Association informed the President of the Union that they were not prepared to recognise the Union or to carry on any correspondence with it. On December 30, 1946, the President of the Union by a letter informed the President of the Association that unless the demands of the workers were accepted, the members of the Union would strike work on January 2, 1947, and pursuant to this notice there was a strike of the members of the Union starting on January...
King Emperor Vs. Budhoo Mandal Gond
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ673
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The non applicant Budhoo was sen-tenced to undergo four months rigorous im-prisonment under Section 488(8), Criminal P. 0., by the Firat Class Magistrate, Bilaspur, for his failure to pay bb. 40, maintenance allowance to his wife at the rate of bs, 10 per mensem; and the Sessions Judge, Raipur, has now reported the case under Section 488, Criminal P. C, to have that sentence reduced to one' month, the maximum prescribed by Section 488 (3), ibid.2. The reference cannot be accepted and it' appears to me that it was founded on a mistaken view of the effect of B. 488 (3), Criminal P. 0. It is true that in Queen.Empress v. Narain 9 all. 240 : 1887 a. w. N. 64, it was held that the maximum term-of imprisonment under the sub-section in question was one month, and that only one month's imprisonment oould be awarded on the whole in default of payment of the aggregate of the amounts due, That view was, however, dissented from in Allapichai Bavuthar v. Mohidin Bibi 20 Mad. 8 : 2...
Mulchand Kundanmal Jagtiani Vs. Raman Hiralal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom197; (1949)51BOMLR86
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit on July 2, 1948, on two promissory notes. A. plaint was also prepared in respect of a suit on a promissory note on August 27, 1948, and an application was made to take that suit on the file of this Court, and the question that arises both in the suit and in the application is whether this Court has jurisdiction to try these two suits, and the question of jurisdiction can only be determined by considering whether a recent piece of legislation passed by the Provincial Legislature is intra vires with regard to certain of its provisions.2. Bombay Act XL of 1948, an Act to establish an additional City Civil Court for Greater Bombay, received the assent of the Governor General on May 10, 1948, and the Act came into force on August 16, 1948. The material provisions of the Act are that it sets up an additional Civil Court for the Greater Bombay for the trying of all suits of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value and arising within the G...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›