Ram V Emperor - Judgment Search Results

Kala Bhika Baria Vs. the State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1966Bom13; (1965)67BOMLR223; 1966CriLJ7; ILR1965Bom519

there was neither rashness nor negligence in the act' (6) The same view has been taken in Babu Ram v. Emperor : AIR1925All396 . In Maung Ba Kyi v. Emperor AIR 1937 Rang 273, spargo J. Observed that if … against him.;Mahendra v. State (1954) I.L.R. 83 Pat. 1000, Gaya Prasad v. Emperor [1928] A.I.R. All. 745, Babu Ram v. Emperor [1925] A.I.R. All. 396, Maung Ba Kyi v. Emperor [1937] A.I.R. Ran. 273, Empress of India v. Idu

Hansabai Sayaji Payagude Vs. Ananda Ganuji Payagude

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1949Bom384; (1949)51BOMLR585; AIR 1949 Pat 256

are discovered, which were not within the knowledge of prosecution when the first charge was brought.4. In Biso Ram v. Emperor A.I.R. [1922] Pat. 372 the Patna High Court has held that an order of discharge should not be … Madhab Banerji (1901) I.L.R. 28 Cal. 652, 659, F.B., In re Koyassan Kutty [1918] A.I.R. Mad. 494, Biso Ram v. Emperor [1922] A.I.R. Pat. 372, Ramanand v. Sheri (1933) I.L.R. 56 All. 425, Parsram Bhagwandas v. Emperor (1929) 30

Emperor Vs. Basant Lal and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1941All330

We may mention here that 'dara bid' has been referred to and described at some length in Lachhi Ram v. Emperor : AIR1933All554 . In fact, we may state further that that case fully covers the facts of the … the modus operandi of that form of gambling is well known and has been set out in Lachhi Ram v. Emperor : AIR1933All554 . Having found that the gambling at the shop of the respondent was 'dara'' gambling the

Emperor Vs. Fulabhai Bhulabhai Joshi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1940Bom363; (1940)42BOMLR857

so, I think with respect that the contrary view which prevailed in the Allahabad High Court (see Munshi Ram v. Emperor [1936] A.I.R. All 11 is not in consonance with the spirit of the enactment.5. I would, therefore, confirm … Act.; Ganpatrao v. Emperor (1932) 34 Cr. L.J. 311 and Public Prosecutor v. Ruttaiyya [1937] Mad. 854, followed.;Munshi Ram v. Emperor [1936] A.I.R. All. 11, dissented from.;Section 5 is not intended to punish parents who arrange or assist in

Emperor Vs. Mahomed Bashir

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1946Bom315; (1946)48BOMLR46

have to see as to what the object of the Legislature was. In a very recent case, (Mangat Ram v. Emperor Since reported in A.I.R [1945] A.I.R. Lah. 281) which is still not reported, of a full bench of … Bom. L.R. 967, Emperor v. Mahadewappa (1926) I.L.R. 51 Bom. 352: S.C. 29 Bom. L.R. 153 and Mangat Ram v. Emperor [1945] A.I.R. Lah. 281, referred to.;The proprietor of a hotel was enjoined under a notification issued by the

Emperor Vs. Bhaga Mana

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR364

is actually doing himself.6. We have been referred to a decision of the Lahore High Court in Matu Ram v. Emperor (1922) 24 Cr. L.J. 594 as an authority for the contrary view. In that case a Naib-Tahsildar visited … offered to the servant was tantamount to obstruction to the Circle Inspector under whose orders he was acting.;Matu Ram v. Emperor (1992) 24 Cr. L.J. 594, distinguished. - Section 3: [S.B. Mhase, D.S. Bhosale & A.S. Oka, JJ] Offences

Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Shankar Paranjpe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1924Bom184; (1923)25BOMLR1089

for on behalf of the accused.4. The question referred to us is based upon the decision in Lachchi Ram v. Emperor (1922) 23 CrI. L.J. 196. That was a decision under the Public Gambling Act III of 1867, applicable … room or place is a common gaming house, to the two alternatives mentioned in the case of Lachchi Ram v. Emperor. It is sufficient if the house is one in which instruments of gaming are kept or used for

Romesh Lal JaIn Vs. Naginder Singh Rana and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC336; JT2005(9)SC393; RLW2005(4)SC3074; 2005(8)SCALE810; (2006)1SCC294; 2006(1)LC217(SC)

thus, abused their position, this Court applying the test laid down by the Federal Court in Dr. Hori Ram v. Emperor that the official capacity is material only in connection with the 'entrustment' and does not necessarily enter into

Kumaran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr

Court: Supreme Court of India

few judgments of various High Courts on the reach of Section 70 of the Penal Code. In Kirpa Ram v. Emperor AIR1914Lahore 539, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court adverted to Section 70 of the Penal Code

Uma Devi Nambiar and ors. Vs. T.C. Sidhan (Dead)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2004SC1772; 2004(1)BLJR583; (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN56; 2004(2)CTC287; [2004(3)JCR208(SC)]; JT2003(10)SC470; 2004(2)KLT75(SC); (2004)3MLJ7(SC); 2003(10)SCALE624; (2004)2SCC32

possession of the property summarily directing the order disputants to seek their remedy in proper Courts. (See Biso Ram v. Emperor 66 Ind. Cas. 76. A person aggrieved by an order passed in a summary proceeding under Part VII,