Lallu V Shaha - Judgment Search Results

Premachand S. Bansode and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ142

immediate medical treatment.30. In the context, learned Counsel Shri Kapadia invited my attention to case of Lalit, @ Lallu V. Shaha v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (Supp.) Bom C.R. 138 and Rattan Singh and Ran Singh and Anr. v.

Bai Bhuribai Sukhanand Gurmukhrai Vs. the Advocate General of Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1943Bom377; (1943)45BOMLR669

learned Judge, relying on the earlier decision in Chunilal v. Bai Muli (1899) 2 Bom. L.R. 46 and Lallu v. Jagmohan I.L.R. (1896) 22 Bom. 409, held that as there was no express power of alienation the widow

Nagindas Sankalchand Vs. Bapalal Purshottam

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1930Bom395; (1930)32BOMLR692

proposition reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Laxmanlal v. Mulshankar : (1908)10BOMLR553 and Bhavan Lallu v. Umar Mahomed (1926) 29 Bom. L.R. 97, I.L.R. 51 Bom. 43. On the second point, the authority of

Govindbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Nathabhai Patel

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR175; 163Ind.Cas.632

cases cited in this connection were Mahomed Skumsool v. Shewukram , Radha Prosad Mullick v. Ranimoni Dassi , Lallu v. Jagmohan I.L.R. (1896) 22 Bom. 409, Chunilal v. Bai Muli I.L.R. (1899) 24 Bom. 420 : S.C. 2

A.Subramani. Vs. Rathinammal and ors.

Court: Chennai

there are other sufficient reasons for granting the leave to file a fresh Suit as per decision in Lallu v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1973 Allahabad 195."13. Further, this Court in the above decisions held that the plaintiffs

Gopal S/O Mohanlal Vs. State of M.P.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(86)ECC544

SCC (Cri) 300. The counsel also relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Mohammad Khaijar alias Lallu v. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 166/95 decided on 27.8.2002).5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

Noor Taki Alias Mammu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1987Raj52; 1986(1)WLN310

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar; Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1377 : (1979 Cri LJ 1052), Lallu v. State, 1979 Raj LW 465, Feriyad v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 Raj Cri C 194 : (1985 Cri

Bhagirathibai and anr. Vs. Lalchand Balaram and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1975Bom301; 1975MhLJ295

heirs.5. The view which I have taken is supported by a Division bench decision of this Court in Lallu v. Jagmohan, ILR (1898) 22 Bom 409. In that case, one Janmadas who died in 1876 left a will

Papammal (Died) and ors. Vs. K. Kuppuswamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1973Mad21

it should be inferred that be intended to confer on the first defendant only a life interest.7. In Lallu v. Jagmohan, ILR(1898) Bom 409, the material portion of the will that came up for consideration was as follows:--'My

Bai Savita Vs. Girjashankar Mohanlal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR847

that only a life estate was given to the widow. The first case that he relied upon was Lallu v. Jagmohan I.L.R.(1896) 22 Bom. 409 where the testator made a will making his wife Bai Suraj the owner