Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom565; (1927)29BOMLR1254
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The question submitted to this Full Bench runs :-Where in a suit parties have referred their differences to arbitration without an order of the Court and an award is made, can a decree in terms of the award he passed by the Court under Order XXIII, Rule 3, or otherwise?2. The referring judgment further states that it is to be understood in answering this question that no point arises here to the effect that subsequently to the award, the parties agreed to treat the award as an agreement or compromise of their claims. Nothing of that sort happened. That being so, we have to consider the question under two headings, viz., (a) a decree passed under Order XXIII, Rule 3, and (6) a decree passed 'otherwise'.3. Turning first to Order XXIII, Rule 3, that runs as follows :-Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been, adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1902)ILR25Mad457
Benson, J.1. Major Bell, the accused in this case, is the Superintendent of the Government Gun Carriage Factory in the City of Madras. He caused certain timber to be brought into the city on account of Government without obtaining a license and paying the fees prescribed by Section 841 of the City of Madras Municipal Act I of 1884, and for this act he has been prosecuted at the instance of the Municipal Commissioners and has been fined the nominal sum of one rupee.2. The learned Advocate-General asks us, in the exercise of our powers of revision, to set aside the conviction and sentence as contrary to law. The object of the prosecution and of this revision petition is to obtain an authoritative decision of this Court as to the applicability of Section 341 to Government timber and firewood. The section enacts that 'no timber or firewood shall be brought within the city without a license specifying the place and conditions of storing, to be issued by the President under the bye-laws, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1915)ILR42Cal1094
Beachcraft, J.1. The appellant has been convicted on two charges under Section 3 of Ordinance No. VI of 1914 for having contravened the provisions of Section 5 (7) of the Royal Proclamation of the 9th September relating to Trading with the Enemy. He was tried on three charges, but acquitted on the second. The first charge was to the effect that he had traded in a case of mica destined for a German firm in Germany, and third was to the effect that he had supplied to one Checcacci of Genoa 11 cases of mien, for and by way of transmission to a certain firm in Germany, and thereby traded in the said goods destined for the said enemy country and the said enemies. The Magistrate convicted that appellant on both charges of trading in goods destined for the enemy, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently, and also to a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the third charge.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a member of a firm in C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom107; (1921)23BOMLR161; 61Ind.Cas.146
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The Governor General in Council being desirous of having the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the following question :-Whether or not on the facts in the case stated the application of the Summary Settlement in or about the year 1864 to the villages and lands of Tatya Maharaj situate in British India or to any and if so which was valid and legal ?has referred the said question for the determination of this Court under the provision of Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876.2. The parties to the reference are (1) H.H. the Maharajah of Kolhapur, (2) Shri Bala Maharaj, (3) Shri Jagannath Vasudev Pandit Maharaj, (4) the Secretary of State for India in Council The last named holds no contentious attitude in relation to the matter, the real contestants being Shri Jagannath, who claims under a decision of the Privy Council to be the person entitled to the estate of Tatya Maharaj, on the one hand, and His Highness the Mahara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad225; 162Ind.Cas.68
Cornish. J.1. This reference has been made upon a Civil Revision Petition in which the petitioner was defendant No. 3 in a suit brought by plaintiff-respondents to recover money paid as subscriptions to a prize kuri. Defendant No. 3 and the other defendants promoted this kuri for the purpose of raising funds for a temple. The plaint alleges that plaintiff No. 1 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 plaintiffs' demand for a refund of his subscriptions no repayment has been made by defendants. The sum claimed is Rs. 270 which is the amount of 45...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom3; (1931)33BOMLR1303
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, the Sar Desai of Sawantwadi, sued thirty-three defendants for possession of the property in suit after removal of the buildings which defendants had built on the land, for arrears of rent, and for costs, alleging that the property which belongs to the Savantwadi State was leased for twenty-five years from April 1,1897, to one Narayan Venku Kargutkar, who is the ancestor of the Hindu defendants, and one Farsoo Niklu who is the ancestor of defendants Nos. 10 to 12. The other defendants held under these defendants. The defendants set up various pleas of permanent tenancy, limitation, and so forth, and claimed compensation. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Vengurla, awarded plaintiff possession as against defendants Nos. 1 to 17 and the heirs of defendant No, 18, but dismissed his suit as against the Christian defendants other than defendants Nos. 2 to 16, who were held to be ancient tenants of their portion liable to pay rent to the plaintiff according ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976AP150
Kondaiah, J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in Writ appeal No. 222/68 dated February 25, 1971, the Board of Revenue has submitted a statement of case under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) (hereinafter called 'the Act') for our decision on the following question: 'Whether the petitioner (vendee) is entitled to refund the excess stamp duty paid on the deed dated 12-6-1962 registered as document No. 2014 of 1962 in the Sub Registrar's Office, Kaikalur under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (Act II of 1899) or otherwiseIn order to appreciate the scope of the reference, it is not only profitable but necessary to state the facts that give rise to the question and which are not in dispute and lie in a short compass, Sri Jasti Venkataratnam and his sons had executed a document styled as 'sale deed' on June 12, 1962 in favour of Sri Manganti Suryanarayna, the petitioner herein, in respect of a land for a consideration of Rs.5,980/-. The vendee paid a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom471; (1938)40BOMLR1041
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the temple of Karunasagar at Sarsa in the Kaira district. The plaintiffs are persons claiming to be interested in the temple, being trustees appointed by the will of Bhagwandasji, the last Maharaj or Mahant of the temple who nominated defendant Pragdasji to succeed him. The plaintiffs seek to remove the defendant from the office of Mahant not on the basis of the will, though that gave the trustees power to remove the Mahant under certain circumstances, but under the provisions of the Code relating to public religious and charitable trusts. The reason given for this is that they seek reliefs such as accounts and the framing of a scheme which they could not get under the will. The defence inter alia is that the temple is a private one and that there is no trust for public purposes. The trial Court has decided this point in favour of the defendant on a preliminary issue and dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1910)ILR37Cal796
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is, whether an application for order absolute for foreclosure of a decree nisi in a mortgage suit made in favour of the appellant on the 30th March 1904, is barred by limitation. The circumstances under which the question arises for decision are matters of record, and do not admit of any doubt or dispute. On the 30th September 1901, one Amrita Nath Mitter and his sister-in-law, Madhabmani Dasi, as administrators of the estate of Dwarka Nath Mitter, commenced an action to enforce a mortgage security against Pamela Lambert. They joined as parties defendants, the mortgagor and a purchaser of the equity of redemption, as also two daughters of the mortgagor, who, subject to the life-interest of their mother, had apparently a right of maintenance out of the estate of their father held by her. On the 30th March 1904, the suit was decreed against the first two defendants--the mortgagor and her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR883
Kudoor, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 18-4-1975 passed in R. A. No. 22/71 by the Civil Judge at Coorg, Mercara dismissing the appeal brought by the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant andconfirming the Judgment and decree dated 30-9-1964 passed by theMunsiff at Mercara in O.S. No. 436/51, a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of her title and also for possession of the plaint schedule properties together with future mesne profits and costs etc.2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint may briefly be stated as under.Certain Moolemajalu Somayya and Chinnappa along with Belliappa and Subbanna (defendants-1 and 2 in the suit) formed a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitak-shara School of Hindu law owning certain movable and immovable properties. The said Somayya instituted O. S. No. 6/25 on the file of the then Subordinate Judge of Coorg against Chinnappa, his wife Muddamma, Belliappa, Subbanna and Jone Bangarako...
Tag this Judgment!