Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal862,153Ind.Cas.972
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit, the Corporation of Calcutta claimed Rs. 134-4-9 on account of consolidated rates payable in respect of premises No. 2, Payari Das Lane, Calcutta, which are part of a debutter property of which defendant No. 1 is the shebait, defendant No. 2 a lessee, and defendant No. 3 a mortgagee of defendant No. 2. The defence of defendant No. 1, who alone contested the suit, was that the Corporation's claim arose by reason of a statutory charge created under the provisions of Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act, that it had similar charges over other properties belonging to the same defendant, for the enforcement of which it had brought five other suits, four of which had been decreed by consent, and that by reason of the provisions of Section 67A, Transfer of Property Act, the Corporation must enforce all such charges in one suit. Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act, provides:The consolidated rates due from any person in respect of any land or building shall, subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1989]3SCR144
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The common question which arises for consideration in these cases which are very neatly argued by learned Counsel on both the sides is whether an award passed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is liable either to be remitted under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act or liable to be set aside under Section 30(c) thereof merely on the ground that no reasons have been given by the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, in support of the award.2. Ordinarily all disputes arising under a contract have to be settled by courts established by the State. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that every agreement by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent. Exception 1 to the said Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal173
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 12th of May 1913 Mr. Lionel Hewitt Colson, Special Superintendent, Intelligence Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Indian Police Service, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Additional Magistrate at Barisal, alleging that one Girindra Mohan Das and 43 others had been guilty of offences under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, Mr. Nelson, examined the complainant on oath, recorded his deposition, and directed certain warrants to issue.2. On the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th and 30th days of May, articles, it is said, containing comments on the criminal proceeding initiated by this complaint, described as the Barisal Conspiracy Case, were published in a newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika.3. The Government of Bengal, having been advised that the publication of these articles, and each of them, and in particular the leading article of the 22nd May, 1913, constituted serious contempt of Court, the Advocate-General,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 61Ind.Cas.210
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The Rule in this case was obtained by one Gobordhone Das Deora, who alleged in his petition that he is the son of Hari Bux Daora, the proprietor of the firm of Hari Bux Gobordhan Das.2. The proceedings, in respect of which the Rule was granted, were begun by a complaint by several tenants of certain premises, No. 46, Strand Road, calcutta, against their (landlord or landlords Hari Bux-Gobordhan) Das under Section 20 of the calcutta Rent Act, 1920, on the ground that the landlords I had wilfully discontinued the supply of unfiltered water to the urinals and privies in the premises by disconnecting the inlet and outlet pipes of the reserve tanks and by removing a force pump which was attached to the vertical inlet pipe and had thereby disturbed the easements annexed to the premises.3. The Rant Controller accorded 'sanction to the prosecution of the defendant landlord Hari Bax Gobordhan under Section 20 of the calcutta Rent Act.'4. The President of the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)70MLJ36
Conish, J.1. This reference has been made upon a Civil Revision Petition in which the petitioner was third defendant in a suit brought by plaintiffs respondents to recover money paid as subscriptions to a prize kuri. The third defendant and the other defendants promoted this kuri for the purpose of raising funds for a temple.2. The plaint alleges that the first plaintiff took two tickets in the kuri, and had paid Rs. 270 representing 45 monthly payments on his two tickets. It states that the scheme was that the kuri was to be conducted for 50 months and that those subscribers who had not been so fortunate as to draw a prize were, at the close of the kuri after the 50th drawing, to be refunded the amount of the money subscribed by them. There is the further allegation that the kuri came to an end after payment of the 45 instalments, and that despite the plaintiff's demand for a refund of his subscriptions no repayment has been made by defendants. The sum claimed is Rs. 270 which is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All623; 97Ind.Cas.108
Walsh, J.1. In pursuance of an order made by a Bench of this Court on 14th May 1926, Abdul Hasan Jauhar and Mohammad Ismail appeared before us, a Bench constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, to show cause why either, or both of them, should not be committed to prison for contempt of Court, for that they wrote and caused to be published a pamphlet containing scandalous and defamatory matter concerning a Bench of this Court and the administration of justice in the High Court of these provinces.2. Both of them appeared to show cause in person. Abdul Hasan is able to speak and to understand the English language; Mohammad Ismail is not and in consequence of this the Court directed that the opening statement, and the passages in the pamphlet complained of, should be read to both respondents in Urdu, although the proceedings were conducted in English. Such questions as the Court thought right to put to both the respondents were interpreted to them in Urdu, in which language their answe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All610
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 15th October 1925 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were minors at the time of the mortgage deed, a certificated guardian having been appointed for them, and also pleaded that there was no necessity for contracting the debt. In the rejoinder the plaintiffs denied that the defendants were minors and also asserted that the defendants were liable to pay the amount under Section 68, Contract Act. The issues framed by the trial Court related to the minority of the defendants, the object of the debt and its proper attestation and consideration. The trial Court found that the defendants were more than 18 years of age but under 21 years, and that there was no evidence of representation either by the defendants or their father Sital Prasad. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount under Section 68, Contract Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR2959; 1994(4)KarLJ165
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. This Petition in the first instance was referred to a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice N. Venkatachala and Mr. Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat, by order of the learned Single Judge, Hanumanthappa J., dated 4.7.1991. The Division Bench in turn by order dated 4.10.1991 referred it to a Special Bench. This is how it has been placed before this Bench for disposal. It was to be heard with Writ Appeal No. 956/90, which is already disposed of by us by a separate Judgment, : AIR1994Kant52 . 2. So far as this Petition is concerned, the Points that arise for our Consideration are as under: (1) Are the holders of Bane Lands in Coorg upon Jamma tenure, the owners thereof? (2) Whether Rule 167(1) of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation 1899 continues in operation despite the repeal of the Regulation by Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? (3) To what relief the petitioners are entitled to 3. In order to appreciate the grievances posed by the petitioners, it is neces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1922)43MLJ486
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This case is an instance of the appallingly protracted litigation in this country which has been recently described by the Privy Council 'as a disgrace to any civilised community'. The money in dispute was left by will by a large] number of legacies, some of them of small amounts, to persons in humble positions. The plaintiff sues as assignee of some of the larger legacies. The testatrix died in in 1899 and, assuming the money in dispute to have been disposable by will by the testatrix, there was enough to pay all legatees, but up to now nothing has been paid to any of them; and those who are still alive and can be traced are now told that they will not receive anything until this case has been once more to the Privy Council, for the case has been brought before us with documents prepared in the form of a Privy Council appeal, and we have been told by the defendants that our views on the subject are only being taken in passing. I venture to hope that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Tag this Judgment!