Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal12
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The decree-holder opposite party obtained a decree on 15th May 1947, from the Court of Munsif, Jamalpur, within the district of Mymensingh, against 'The Governor-General of India in Council, New Delhi and B. A. Railway, having its Head Office at 3 Koilaghat Street, Calcutta.' The nature of particulars of the claim on which the decree was passed cannot be ascertained from the records. On 8th December 1947, the decree-holder applied to the Court of Munsif, Jamalpur, under Order 21 Rule 6, Civil P. C., for a certificate of non-satisfaction, A certificate was issued accordingly and a copy o! the order was, as applied for by the decree, holder, directed by the Munsif at Jamalpur to be sent to the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta with a copy of the decree. This order was passed in Money Execution Case No. 86 of 1947. On 13th March 1948, the decree-holder opposite party filed in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, an application for execution of the decree so t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)ILR43Mad905
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff, the South Indian Railway Company, Ltd., is the appellant before us. The suit was brought for recovery back of the total of the sums paid by the Railway Company to the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly between March 1912 and November 1914, for what are called private scavenging services performed by the Municipality for the Railway Company. I find that they are called 'scavenging fees' in the relevant notices, reports and bills (see for example Exhibit J.).2. The Railway Company owns stations and offices at the Junction and Fort of Trichinopoly. There are several latrines and urinals in these places, and the washings and the nightsoil are collected by the railway authorities through the railway coolies into certain receptacles and a repository and into cisterns, the urinals being drained into cisterns. The Municipality owns carts and bulls, and employs drivers to drive the carts to the Municipal nightsoil depot which is situated at a distance of 5 1/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.697
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, the South Indian Railway Company, Limited, is the appellant before us. The suit was brought for recovery of the total of the sums paid by the Railway Company to the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly between March 1912 and November 1914 for what are sailed private scavenging services performed by the Municipality for the Railway Company. I find that they are called scavenging fees in the relevant notices, reports and bills (See for example Exhibit J).2. The Railway Company own stations and offices at the Junction and Fort of Trichinopoly. There are several latrines and urinals in these places, and the washings and the night soil are collected by the Railway authorities through the Railway coolies into certain receptacles and a repository and into cisterns, the urinals being drained into cisterns. The Municipality owns carts and bulls and employs drivers to drive the carts to the Municipal night-soil-depot, which is situated at a distance of 5 1/2 or 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad118; (1940)1MLJ32
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises important questions with regard to the stamping of plaints in suits for the partition of estates of joint Hindu families. The petitioner is the minor son of a Hindu father. Through his mother as next friend he has filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam for partition of the family properties and for possession of his one-fifth share therein. He has joined as defendants his father, his three brothers, and twenty-two other persons. The stranger defendants are made parties either as alienees of family properties or as creditors of the family. In his plaint the plaintiff avers that the family is one engaged merely in agriculture and that before the matters complained of, it had large cash resources. He alleges that his father has engaged in reckless speculation in land, in trade, and in litigation with the result that the cash resources have disappeared, the family properties have been sold or mortgaged and num...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1948Mad51
ORDERClark, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidator under Section 235 of the Act. Respondent 1 was the Managing Director of the Company and respondents 2 to 10 were directors. Respondent 11 was the company's auditor and respondent 12 its head-clerk. Respondent 1 is not appearing in these proceedings. He was adjudicated insolvent and respondent 13, who was the Official Receiver of his estate, was joined, but I am told that the insolvency has been annulled and accordingly respondent 13 has no further interest in the matter.2. The liquidator claims that large amounts are recoverable from the respondents for misfeasances consisting for the most part in their having granted loans contrary to the byelaws of the company. It is alleged that these loans, which are now, I understand, irrecoverable, were granted at the absolute discretion of respondent 1 without any previous sanction by the Board and, accordingly, that respondent 1 is primarily liable for these losses. It is claimed by the liqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori146
Jagannadha Das, J.1. Cri Misc. No. 107 of 1949: The petitioner in this case has applied to this Court under Section 491, Criminal P. C., questioning the validity of an order of detention dated 20th April 1949, passed against him, by the Government of Orissa, under Section 2, Orisaa Maintenance of Public Order Act, The petition is dated 4th June 1949, and has been forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent of Cuttack Jail where he was under detention. It bas been stated to us by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Government that this petitioner has since absconded and has gone underground. When this petition came up for hearing before us on 17th and 18th of August, we intimated to the counsel appearing for the petitioner that we would not be prepared to consider the application unless the petitioner presented himself in Court and made himself available receiving the orders of the Court. The petition was adjourned for consideration to 22nd; but the petitioner has not turned up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1924)ILR47Mad262
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.1. The question for decision is whether an English company, with sterling capital, is liable to assessment under the heading 'Tax on Companies' under the Madras City Municipal Act, IV of 1919. This depends on the proper interpretation of Section 110 and of Rule (7) of Schedule IV which must be read together. That section runs:Every incorporated company transacting business within the city for profit . . . shall pay by way of licence fee . . . a half-yearly tax on its paid-up capital on the scale shown in the taxation rules in Schedule IV but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand, if and as soon as it has transacted business in the city for the period prescribed in Section 113.2. Turning to Rule (7) of Schedule IV, it runs:Companies shall be assessed by the Commissioner on the following scale:Paid-up capital--lakhs of rupees. Half-yearly tax. RS.A. More than twenty ... ... ... 1,000B. More than ten, less than twenty ... 500etcetera.3. That has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1895)ILR18Mad99
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to a Full Bench is whether the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitation Act are applicable to, and govern, a suit for which special provision is made by Section 77 of the Registration Act.2. Act III of 1877 appears to be a Special Act complete in itself, and according to a well-established rule for the construction of statutes it should be presumed that the Legislature did not intend by a general enactment to interfere with it. Lord Hatherley, when Vice-Chancellor in Fitzgerald v. Champneys 50 L.J. (Ch.) 777 at page 782, thus states the proposition of law: 'The reason is that the Legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject and observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention to do so.'3. Section 77 of Act III of 1877 enacts that, when the Registrar refuses to order the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal92
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case certain immoveable property was sold by the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a decree of this Court for Rs. 5,000. It was sold subject to two mortgages, securing repayment with interest of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 250 respectively.2. The Board of Revenue have referred to us the question whether the stamp on the sale certificate should be for Rs. 5,000, the purchase-money, or for Rs. 12,250, being the amount of the purchase-money plus the sum secured by the mortgages.3. The Collector and the Board of Revenue consider that the stamp should be for Rs. 12,250, and we are referred to two Full Bench authorities, one of the Bombay High Court Sha Nagindas Jeychand v. Halalkore Nathwa Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 and the other of the Madras High Court-Reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act I.L.R. 5 Mad. 18, which appeared to be in conflict.4. The Bombay Court decided that where a certificate of sale expressly stated that the sale was made subject to the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!