Raphael Pereira V Emperor - Judgment Search Results

Balukishan A. Devidaval Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1975CriLJ1891

as the Bombay view, which is referred to in some of the decisions as the 'broad view.'28. In Raphael Pereira v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom517 Macleod, O J. and Crump, J, held in the case of a prosecution under the Bombay

AmIn Shariff Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1934Cal580,150Ind.Cas.561

696. In the same year there was a decision on similar lines in the Bombay High Court in Raphael Pereira v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom517 . In the following year again there was the decision of this Court in the ease

Emperor Vs. Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1196

we come to the decision of Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Crump, on April 7 last, in Pereira v. Emperor (1926) 28 Bom. I. R. 674 This was another opium case, and the Court followed the above Calcutta

Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed Vs. Emperor

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1927Bom4

we come to the decision of Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Crump, on April 7 last, in Pereira v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom517 . This was another opium case, and the Court followed the above Calcutta decision. The learned

Francisco Xavier @ Mickky Pacheco Vs. State of Goa, by the Public Pros ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

behalf of learned Senior Counsel for the accused: 2014 (2) G.L.R. 54 in the case of Mr. Alizar Pereira V/s. State of Goa. The shelter of the above authority was taken for canvassing the proposition on behalf … On this aspect following authority is cited by learned amicus: AIR 1935 ALL 563 in the case of Emperor V/s. Bandhoo Ahir and Ors. This authority is cited while canvassing the proposition that when any assault or

N. Jothi Vs. Rajamani and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1996CriLJ2435; 1996(1)CTC187

cogent proof that unfair advantage was taken of his position as pleader for an indirect purpose.' In Filomeno Pereira v. Foad Lourenco Femand ES 1981 Cri LJ 117 Goa it has been held that 'if serious and baseless … a pleading which contains defamatory matter.' A division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Upendra Nath Bagchi v. Emperor, 909 ILR 36 Cal 375, held that 'when a pleader is charged with defamation, in respect of words

Kusta Balsu Kandnekar Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR603; (1986)88BOMLR219; 1986MhLJ540

of conviction is by filing an appeal against the acquittal and exercising appellate powers therein. (See Kishan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1928 PC 254 : 1928 CriLJ 828 and Satyendra Nath v. Ram Narain, : [1975]2SCR743 ). In … Kandnekar (P.W. 6), Miss Vaijayanti Kandnekar (P.W. 7), Sagun Madkar (P.W. 8), Jivan Bhandari (P.W. 9) and Joaquim Pereira (P.W. 10) shows as to how the incident developed. Initially, there was a quarrel and fight between the

Shri Om Prakash Gupta Vs. the United Provinces

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1951All205

for services is concerned, that the correct view is as stated by Lord Loreburn in Owners of S.S. Raphael v. Brandy, (1911) A. C. 418), (Lord Loreburn said :'The authorities cited go no further than to say … if he was removed in advance of the expiry of the term of employment. In Clifford B. Reilly v. Emperor, A. I. R. (21) 1984 P. C. 60 : (148 I. C. 637), the Judicial Committee found it

Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Shanti Lal Laxmi Chand Modi and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1971Delhi584B

not admissible in evidence. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Privy Council in Pukalu N'aruycma Swami v. Emperor (6) in which the word 'confession' was defined in the following terms :- 'THE word 'confession^ as used … of the various documents from his house as well as from his office, Public Witness 11, Shri Dominac Raphael D'cost Preventive Officer, Bombay Customs, is the person who carried out these searches and Public Witness s. 12

Antony D'mello Vs. Joseph Mathew Pereira

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR620

fact been proved as yet. There is some authority for that view. I may mention Paul Le Flonder v. Emperor I.L.R. (1931) Cal. 92 and Yacoob Ahmed v. V.M. Abdul Ganny I.L.R. (1928) Ran. 380. There is no … was committed, and the question in this case is whether the offence can be tried in Bombay. The Pereira applicants' contention is that it was only when the accused returned to Bombay on December 16, 1935, and