Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom182; (1938)40BOMLR52
Engineer 1. This is a petition for winding up of the Aryan Life Assurance Society, a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. The liability of the members is limited by guarantee. Clause 5 of the memorandum of association is as follows :-Every member of the Society undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Society, in the event of the same being wound up during the time that he is a member, or within one year thereafter for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Society contracted before the time at which he ceased to be a member, and the costs, charges and expenses of winding-up the same and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories amongst themselves, as may be required, not exceeding Rs. 25.3. The petition is by eleven petitioners, and it was presented on March 31, 1937. Section 22 of the Indian Life Assurance Companies Act (VI of 1912) provides that-The Court may order the winding-up of a life assurance company, in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 73Ind.Cas.343; (1923)44MLJ655
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913, was correctly decided,2. This is not a desirable form of reference to a Full Bench, because the facts of one case are seldom precisely the same as those of another and it is much better that the point on which the opinion of the Full Bench is desired should be formulated. In In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913, a Village Magistrate arrested a drunken man whose conduct was at the time a grave danger to the public. In this case two Police Constables arrested a man who was drunk and creating disturbance, but to what extent he was a danger to others does not appear in the order of reference. The decision in In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913 went on the ground that the English Common Law which is ' that for the sake of the preservation of the peace any individual' who sees it broken may restrain the liberty of him whom he sees breaking it so long as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1914)ILR37Mad483
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the daughter, and defendants Now. 2 and 3 are the sons, of one deceased Venkataratnam, who insured his life for Rs. 2,000 which the Insurance Office agreed to pay to his wife and children. The plaintiff got a decree against Venkataratnam and he claims the insurance money towards the decree, including the Rs. 400 that fell to the first defendant.2. The first question for decision is whether the money insured is protected by the Married Women's Property Act (III of 1874) or whether it is a part of the estate of the deceased. The Judge, following the decision in Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Ltd., v. Vanteddu Ammiraju I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 162 as he was bound to do, held that the Act did not apply. This is an appeal from that decision.3. It is argued before us that that judgment ought not to be followed, and that the Act is applicable to cases like the one before us. Section 6 of Act III of 1874 runs thus:A policy of insurance effecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom390; (1924)26BOMLR395
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the decision of the Division Court on November 23, 1921, refusing to excuse the delay of the applicants in the presentation of their petition for a certificate of appeal to the Privy Council. The learned Judges who constituted the Court disagreed as to whether the delay should be excused. Accordingly under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed, which was to the effect that the delay should not be excused. Consequently it became unnecessary to decide whether the certificate should be granted. I should state that one consolidated rule had been granted both in the above application to excuse delay and in the above petition for a certificate. They were respectively Civil Applications No. 615 of 1921 and No. 681 of of 1921, and both of them were before the Division Court Similarly the present appeal before us is headed in both the above applications, although that does not appear fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom117; (1928)30BOMLR350
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate confirming the order passed by the Marylebone Police Court on May 28, 1626, under Section 3 of the Act of 1920 to Facilitate Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 33) whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay to his wife a sum of two pounds a week for maintenance, and a sum of two shillings for costs. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has confirmed the order under Act XVIII of 1921. Rule was issued on the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision or otherwise with the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate.2. The principal Act relating to the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrates in reference to married women is the Act of 1895 (58 & 59 Vic. c. 39). Under Section 4 any married woman can apply to a Court of summary jurisdiction for an order of maintenance under the Act. The Act of 1895 is amended by an Act of 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad22
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The three charges against the petitioners were (1) that in the mouth of April or May 1946 they cheated Albert Correa, P. W. 10, at Verapurzha in Travancore State, (2) that about the month of March 1946 they cheated P. W. 11, V. Hormis, at Cheranallur in Cochin state and (3) that in about February 1946, again at Cheranallur in Cochin, they cheated P. W. 12, M. C. Simon, and that they committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 37, Penal Code, The petitioners have applied to have these charges quashed.2. On the date of the offences complained of the accused were 'native Indian subjects of His Majesty within the meaning of Section 4, Clause (1), Penal Code, as it stood on that date. The offences were alleged to have been committed in Travancore and Cochin which were beyond 'British India' within the meaning of Section 4(1), Penal Code. Section 188, Criminal P. C., prescribed the sanction of the political agent or of a local Government before cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal319
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was obtained under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The circumstances are as follows: Subodh Chandra Roy Chowdhry, a servant of the Jodhpur State, was arrested by the Calcutta Police without a warrant on August 11th. He was produced before the Deputy Commissioner on August 13th, when an application for bail was practically refused, for the sum demanded was prohibitive.3. It appears that the Calcutta Police received two telegrams on or about August 11th. The first, in addition to personal description, said 'wanted for embezzlement.' The second, in addition to suggestions about possible movements, said 'embezzlement of money to the value of a couple of lakhs of rupees.' This was all the information which the Calcutta Police had when they arrested the man, and the search of his house yielded nothing. Both these telegrams were sent by 'Police' without further specification.4. Since the arrest, and in answer to a telegram from Calcutta, telegrams hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR197; 108Ind.Cas.465
Crump, J.1. This is a petition by the Tata Iron Steel Company Limited under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. The members of the company are of four kinds :-(1) first preference shareholders; (2) second preference shareholders; (3) ordinary shareholders; and (4) deferred shareholders. The first preference shareholders are entitled to a fixed cumulative dividend at the rate of six per cent, per annum calculated on the profits of the company in any one year. The second preference shareholders are entitled to a similar dividend at the rate of seven and a half per cent, per annum. After these dividends have been paid, the ordinary shareholders are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to eight per cent,, and then the deferred shareholders come in, and are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to twenty-five per cent, per annum, That is to say, the profits, which it is determined to distribute every year are devoted to paying dividends first to first preference shareholders, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1945Mad47
1. The main question arising for decision in this second appeal is whether the provisions of Section 33A(1) of Act 39 of 1923, the Succession Act apply to this case so as to benefit the appellant to the extent of property worth Rs. 5000. The appellant is the widow of one Arulandu Nadan who was an Indian Christian. He died in the year 1936 leaving his widow defendant 1, a sister the plaintiff, a brother defendant 2 and two daughters by a deceased sister, defendants 3 and 4. The property left by the deceased Arulandu Nadan is stated in the plaint to be worth Rs. 6725-14-0. The plaintiff conceded that defendant 1 was entitled exclusively to Rs. 5000 and interest thereon. Deducting this sum she claimed a sixth in the balance and that was mentioned to be Rs. 159-13-10-2/3. It was also stated that defendants 3 and 4 who were her sister's daughters were entitled to a like sum of Rs. 159-13-10-2/3. Defendant 2 was stated to be also entitled to a similar sum and the balance of the excess was st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 115Ind.Cas.486
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Company, Limited, against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March, 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the Company, for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the Company by reason of their several acts of fraud and misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April, 1922, and the final judgment on 4th April, 1924 Defendant No. 1 has not appealed but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The Company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various ...
Tag this Judgment!