Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.102
1. The substantial question of law, which we are invited to decide in this appeal, relates to the true effect of Section 109 comprised in Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 as amended by Act III of 1898 B.C. and as it stood before the charges made by the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Amendment Act of 1908 came into force. The Court of appeal below, in reversal of the decision of the Court of first instance, has held that the effect of Section 109 is to bar all suits in Civil Court for declaration that entries made in a record-of-rights finally published under Section 103A, are erroneous, when such publication has been followed by an application by the landlord under Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land entered in the record as held by the tenants. The circumstances under which this question arises for decision are not disputed, and are indeed all matters of record. The record-of-rights was finally published on the 13th December 1904; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom217; (1927)29BOMLR352; 101Ind.Cas.555
Fawcett, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment, but I regret that I do not see my way to agree with his conclusion, nor with his opinion that the provisions of Rule 7 are as directory after the amendment of the rule by Act XXVI of 1920, as they were before the Act was passed.2. The insertion of the words 'or such further period' etc. show that the legislature's attention had been drawn to the question of extension of time by the Court, and they put a definite time-limit on any such extension in the first of the two alternative cases provided for by the rule, and give no corresponding power to extend time in the second of those two cases. I can hardly conceive of a case to which the maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusio alterius' should more obviously apply. The question arises regarding two consecutive sentences in an enactment, and it is not a case where there is any room for thinking that there may be a failure to make the 'expressio' complete by oversi...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1946Bom216; (1945)47BOMLR1010
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioners are partners carrying on business in partnership in the firm name and style of Kokwah Chinese Restaurant at Dhanraj Mahal, Apollo Bunder, Bombay. They have been occupying shops Nos. 1, 5 and 11 on the ground-floor of the Dhanraj Mahal and have been conducting the business of the restaurant since March 22, 1944, when they purchased the restaurant together with its paraphernalia and goodwill from the previous owners thereof on payment of a sum of Rs. 42,000. The restaurant has been in existence in any event from and after May 1942 when the previous owners stopped their business of curios which they had been carrying on there along with the business of restaurant and converted the whole premises for their user as a restaurant. The restaurant employs about twenty-four servants and is fitted up with costly fixtures, fittings and furniture which has been installed therein. It also enjoys considerable goodwill in so far as it commands a great reputation and cate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1946Bom499; (1946)48BOMLR327
Bhagwati, J.1. Two brothers, one Vithal Ramchandra Parulkar and another Vishnu. Ramchandra Parulkar, had monetary dealings with a firm of money lenders by name Himmatmal Manji & Co. commencing from sometime prior to November 17, 1922V The account in respect of these monetary dealings was maintained in the joint names, of Vithal Ramchandra Parulkar and Vishnu Ramchandra Parulkar in the books of account of Messrs. Himmatmal Manji & Co. This account was adjusted on or about November 17, 1922, when a sum of Rs. 25,150 was found due and owing by the two brothers to the firm of Messrs. Himmatmal Manji & Co. as of that date. On the same date the adjustment was recorded in the books of account of Messrs. Himmatmal Manji & Co. showing the said sum of Rs. 25,150 as due by both of them 'Personal debts to the account of both till today, November 17, 1922.' Signatures of both of them were appended at the foot of this adjustment. On the same day it was agreed between the firm of Messrs. Himmatmal Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR568; 152Ind.Cas.947
Mirza, J.1. This suit has arisen out of an unfortunate dispute between the plaintiffs who are the Municipal Corporation of the city of Bombay and as such represent the interests of the rate-payers of that city, and the defendant who is the Secretary of State for India in Council and as such represents in this case the interests of the tax-payers of the Bombay Presidency. The dispute is in respect of the liability of the Secretary of State for India in Council to contribute a certain amount annually towards defraying the expenses of primary education in the city of Bombay, under an arrangement said to have been arrived at between the Bombay Government and the plaintiff Municipality. [After referring to the efforts made to settle the dispute between the parties, his Lordship proceeded:]2. The case for the plaintiffs is that as the result of certain negotiations in the years 1916 and 1917 a contract was eventually arrived at between the plaintiffs and the Government of Bombay by which the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ490
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(6) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence, punishable under Section 121 A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence, charged under Section 121 A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad324
Govinda Menon, J. 1. These are petitions under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by the various petitioners herein praying that directions in the nature of habeas corpus to be issued to the superintendent of the respective jails in which they are confined to produce them before this Court so that they might be set at liberty. In all these cases the petitioners are detained under the provisions of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Act I [1] of 1947) as amended by the Madras Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XVII [17] of 1948). Madras Act I [1] of 1947 was to remain in force for a period of one year from 12th March 1947 and there was a provision therein that the Provincial Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, extend the continuance of the Act for a further period or periods not exceeding one year in the aggregate. In accordance with that provision contained in Section 1 (4) of Act I [1] of 1947, the Provincial Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad397
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J., and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the fourteenth accused of the offence charged under Section 121-A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran-Nair, J.) convicted the first, second, sixth and fourteenth accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires farther consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24th November 1943, dismissing the appellant's appeal from the judgment and decree dated 16th December 1942, of Chagla J. exercising original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. [2] In the suit out of which this appeal arises the appellant, who was plaintiff, claimed against respondent 1, the Alembic Chemical Works Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company") Rs. 9,00,000 damages for breach of an agreement of 7th December 1907, to employ the firm of Kotibhasker Amin and Co., of which the appellant claimed to be a member, as managing agents of the company. [3] The claim arises in this way. The company was formed in the year 1907 and under el. 6 of the Memorandum of Association it was provided that the members who then constituted or who might thereafter constitute the firm of Messrs. Kotibhasker Amin and Co. were thereby appointed secretaries, treasurers and agents...
Tag this Judgment!