Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom278; (1927)29BOMLR498
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The first and principal question of the five questions submitted to this Full Bench is : 'Whether a suit brought by a mortgagee of land to enforce his mortgage by sale is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.' It will be noticed that the question has been deliberately confined to enforcing a mortgage by sale. That is the relief asked for in the present suit, and that is the relief ordinarily asked for on the Original Side. Indeed it was even said during the hearing that many Judges in this Court have refused to grant foreclosure at all. And personally I do not remember any case in which I was asked to pass a foreclosure decree, although I must have had hundreds of mortgage suits before me at various times during the last ten years.2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent runs as follows :-And we do further ordain that the, said High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All475
Saxena, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the Chief Controlling RevenueAuthority, viz., the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh.2. Admittedly in an auction BanneyKhan applicant took the contract for collection of toll from the premises known as 'New Sabzimandi' belonging to the Municipal Board, Ujhani, District Budaun, for the period 1st of April, 1967, to March 1968. In pursuance of this auction a document (Annexure I to the Reference) describing the Municipal Board, Ujhani, as 'the lessor' and the applicant as 'the lessee' was executed by both the parties on 31-3-1967. Stamp duty of Rs. 2.50 was paid on this document. The essential terms of the agreement were that during the said period of one year the lessee will remain in possession of the subject-matter of lease and will realise toll on all the goods at the rates provided by the lessor. The lessee will pay to the lessor for such permission a sum of Rs. 23,700/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- will b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1944Mad95; (1943)2MLJ489
Somayya, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, a company can refer any dispute between it and another person to arbitration only in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. The facts that led to this dispute may be briefly stated The appellant is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 63 of 1936 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Kanara. The lower Court dismissed the appellant's application for executing the decree passed in the suit holding that the decree was a nullity and therefore not executable. The decree-holder (appellant) is the Karnataka Bank, Limited. There were disputes between the bank and the respondents and the matter was referred to the arbitration of one K.P. Vasudeva Rao and the arbitrator decided that the plaintiff should get a sum of Rs. 18,477 from the respondents, The award was put into Court under paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code and the pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad727; (1930)59MLJ358
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Phillips. The question raised is whether the defendants are liable to pay interest on the rent due by them under a written lease. The learned Judge has held that the Interest Act (XXXlI of 1839) is not applicable but that interest is nevertheless payable on general equitable grounds. The case has been argued fully on both sides and numerous authorities have been cited. To my mind, the case presents no difficulty, although the state of the law is not satisfactory, and I shall briefly deal with the points raised without burdening my judgment with needless citation of cases.2. The effect of the lease deed is thus stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Phillips:It is clear from the terms of the document that the payment of rent to the plaintiff is to commence as soon as the lands are assessed. The lease is an improvement lease under which the lands are to be gradually brought under cultivation and until ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 44Ind.Cas.770
Fletcher, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench for determination is as follows:Whether the case of the Trustees for Improvement of Calcutta v. Chandra Kanta Ghosh 36 Ind. Cas. 749 : 44 C. 219 : 24 C.L.J. 246 : 21 C.W.N. 8 in so far as it holds that Act V of 1911 (B.C.) does not authorize the Board of Trustees to acquire land compulsorily for purposes of 'recoupment' i.e., by selling or otherwise dealing with the land under Section 81 or by abandoning the land in consideration of the payment of a sum under Section 78, was rightly decided.2. The suit out of which the present reference arises was instituted on the Original Side of this Court by the plaintiff as the owner of the premises known as No. 10, Halliday Street, against the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and the Land Acquisition Collector for the purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the defendants from acquiring the said premises or doing any acts in furtherance thereof. From the statement given in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.749
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed -against a decree made in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, in a suit instituted by him against the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. The allegations in the plaint, which form the basis of the claim, may be briefly summarised. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 40-10 Chaulpati Road within the Municipal limits of Calcutta, recently sub-divided into Nos. 40-10 and 40-10-1, The area comprised therein is more than one-and-a-half bighas and is situated at a distance of about 126 feet away to the west of the present Russa Road, whereof Chaulpati Road is a branch. Since his purchase of the land, the plaintiff had filled up a large tank that lay within the boundaries thereof, baa raised its level and made it fit for building purposes, had contracted, with the sanction of the Municipal Corporation, a two storied building on a portion of the land, and had collected materials for the erection of other suitable buildings thereon. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR4125; 1999(6)KarLJ320
ORDER1. This revision by the judgment-debtor Shivalingeshwara Oil Mill, Haveri, represented by its Managing Partner, is directed against the Executing Court's order dated 31-3-1997 passed in Execution No. 6 of 1991 rejecting its contention that it is a 'debtor' within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Act of 1980) and, therefore, its liability under the money decree in execution is deemed to have been discharged by virtue of Section 3 of the Act. 2. Certain undisputed facts giving rise to this revision are that O.S. No. 29 of 1978 for recovery of Rs, 26,635/- with interest was filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the decree-holder') against the petitioner-firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the judgment-debtor'). That suit was decreed by the Trial Court on the basis of compromise between the parties making the decree amount payable in three equal instalments. The first instalment was paid by the judgment-debtor on 15-2-1979. He defaulted in payment of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.31068 of 2009 and SLP (C) No.4648 of 2010.2. The common question that arises for consideration by the Court in this batch of cases is whether an order, though not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after 1996 Act ), would nevertheless be subject to appeal under the relevant provision of the Letters Patent of the High Court. In other words even though the Arbitration Act does not envisage or permit an appeal from the order, the party aggrieved by it can still have his way, by-passing the Act and taking recourse to another jurisdiction.3. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, senior advocate, however, who led the arguments on behalf of the appellants, would like to frame the question differently. He would ask whether there is any provision in the 1996 Act that can be said to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under its Letters Patent either expressly or even impliedly. He would say that the jurisdiction of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All513; 1949CriLJ798
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Shri Basudeva under Section 491, Criminal P. O. The applicant is the proprietor of firm styled 'Mahanand Ram Bajoria and Brothers' in Shahjahanpur which deals in kerosene oil. On 19th. December, 1948, the applicant was arrested and Ordered to be detained under the U. P. Prevention of Black-marketing (Temporary Powers) Act, XXII [93] of 1048. By the present application, the applicant contends that his-arrest and detention, under this Act, are illegal' and one of the grounds which has been urged is that the provisions of the Act which provide for-detention are ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature.2. The impugned Act received the assent of-the Governor General on 11th April, 1948 under Section 76, Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted, and was promulgated on 14th April, 1948. The' Preamble of the Act is as follows:Whereas it is expedient in the interest of maintenance of Public Order and supplies essential to the life-of the community to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR904
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. The question referred to the Pull Bench by the order of Reference dated the 1st October 1906 is whether Mamlatdars empowered by the Mamlatdars' Act can entertain and decide suits to which the Collector is a party.2. Two points were propounded to us by the Advocate General before the Pull Bench.3. We state them in the reverse order to that in which he argued them.4. The first point, therefore, may be stated as follows, viz., that looking at the history of the Mamlatdars' Courts it could not have been intended that a suit against the Collector would lie therein. The second point was whether the prerogative of the Crown whereby in England the Crown cannot be sued in Civil Courts applies to India so as to preclude the present suit being entertained.5. Before we deal with these points however we would wish to state very shortly the nature of the plaintiff's claim.6. The suit was filed in the Court of the Mamlatdar of the Daskroi Taluka in Ahmedabad by the pla...
Tag this Judgment!