Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Khairati Lal Baboo Lal vs B.B. And C.I. Ry. on 13 February, 1928

A.M. Mariappa Mudaliar vs The Governor General-In Council Owning ... on 15 December, 1949

In Khairati Lal v. B. B. & C. I. Rail-way, A. I. R. (15) 1938 ALL. 230 : (113 I. C. 743), Banerji (Walsh?) J. held that such an inference was a legitimate one in rather similar circumstances. The concentration of the culprits on this lot of unbooked bales to the exclusion of other booked articles is prima, facie very suspicious and permits a reasonable inference that this concentration rose from a delusion, since the railway servants were under, that unbooked articles in the goods shed were not the subject matter of responsibility of the railway administration but were fair game to be preyed upon with impunity. I find misconduct on the part of the railway servants clearly proved as regards the second and third bales lost.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahadat Ali vs The State Of Assam And Ors. on 18 November, 1952

17. It was held in Baboo Ram v. State, A.I.R. 1951 ALL. 838 that the mere fact that the arrest was originally ordered for a specific offence but it was not followed by prosecution for that offence cannot affect the power of that detaining authority to take preventive action after the interim or final release of the person detained. It cannot be held that where an arrest unaccompanied by prosecution is followed by an order of detention, the Court must hold that the detention was mala fide. The burden of proving that the order was mala fide lies upon the detenu. I entirely agree with this proposition.
Gauhati High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1