Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad751
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Defendant 10 in O. S. No. 543 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam is the petitioner. O. S No. 643 of 1938 was filed by the respondents who are jenmies for recovery of Michavaram against some of the defendants who are the kanomdars. The respondents represented two thavazhis, the tarwad consisting of three branches. The other thavazhi is represented by the other defendants. A simple mortgage decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 9th August 1934. The final decree was passed on 27th July 1936. E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 was filed by the plaintiffs for bringing the property to sale and a Commissioner was appointed to report as to the survey numbers and the property that was sought to be sold and in his report it is stated that the parties are not at issue in respect of items 1 and 4 of the schedule to the decree. In E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 an order was made directing the plaintiffs to have the survey numbers given in the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom522; (1939)41BOMLR1084
Kania, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendants Rs. 3,699-14-6 together with interest on Rs. 2,251-5-3 at six per cent. The plaintiff had money dealings with the defendants at Junagadh, and it is alleged that the plaintiff lent Rs. 2,500 to the defendants who carried on business in the firm name of M.D. Karwa and Co. at Junagadh. The plaintiff filed suit No. 460 of Samvat Year 1981 in the Diwani Adalat at Junagadh, and obtained a decree for Rs. 2,009-13-3 on March 18, 1928. Defendant No. 1 being dissatisfied with the decision filed appeal No. 100 of S.Y. 1984-85 in the Sadar Adalat Court of the Junagadh State ; but the appeal was dismissed on February 9, 1929. Defendant No. 1 being still dissatisfied with the decision filed a second appeal in the Huzur Adalat at Junagadh ; but the same was also dismissed on October 16, 1932. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the foreign judgment seeking to enforce the decree of the Huzur Adalat of Junagadh, dated October ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All11
Wali Ullah Ag., C.J.1. This is an application Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The applicant, Sir Gulab Singh, is the ex-Maharaja, Rewa State. The Rewa State acceded to the Indian Union in August 1947. On 20th May 1948, the Governor-General passed an order addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Dehra Dun. It is an order passed under the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, as adapted by the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation (Adaptation) Order, 1947, promulgated on 26th August 1947, and directs that Sir Gulab Singh, the applicant, shall be placed under personal restraint at No. 10, Dolialwala, Dehra Dun, and be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the Government and the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulations, 1818. In pursuance of this order--the warrant of commitment--the applicant is being kept in personal restraint at Dehra Dun. By means of this application, it is prayed that the applicant may be set at liberty inasmuch as his detention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ662
1. This appeal arises out of an action by the members of the Madras Race Club. The action was tried on the original side by Bell, J., and by his judgment he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The Madras Race Club is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 before it was amended in 1936. The object of the Club, as its name indicates, is to carry on the business of a race club and to provide certain amenities to its members. The Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association are contained in Ex. P-29. The Memorandum of Association prohibits the division of profits by way of dividend amongst the members, and they have to be utilised only for the purpose of the club. There are two classes of members, namely, club members and stand members. There are about 260 club members, and they alone are entitled to vote, while the stand members have certain other privileges, but not the right to vote. The management of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR831
Lokur, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit filed by five brothers, the sons of Raghoshet Wani of Dabhadi, against Supadu Laxmanshet Wani, defendant No. 1, his six sons defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and their tenants defendants Nos. 8 and 9. The plaintiffs claimed to recover possession of two lands, Revision Survey No. 83 of Jalgaon and Revision Survey No. 273 of Dhandri, together with Rs. 300 as past mesne profits for three years, future raesne profits and costs of the suit. The plaintiffs based their claim on their title which, they alleged, was accepted by the defendants when Suit No. 395 of 1924 in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Nasik was compromised. The defendants denied their title and contended that the compromise application, being not registered, was inadmissible in evidence and that it was not binding on them as the compromise had been brought about by undue influence. Both the Courts below disallowed these contentions and awarded to the plaintiffs posse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR1334; 95Ind.Cas.556
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by a married woman for slander. The only defence now subsisting is that without proof of special damage the suit is not maintainable. Admittedly, no special damage is shown. Accordingly, the defence raises an important and interesting question of law, and has led to the able arguments of counsel ranging over a wide field.2. At the outset I should make it clear that the lady has already vindicated her honour. She has prosecuted the defendant under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation, and he has been convicted by a criminal Court and fined Rs. 50 or in default to suffer one month's imprisonment. His application to the High Court in revision was rejected, The only question is, whether in addition the plaintiff can recover damages in a civil suit. Her claim is for Rs. 10,000.3. The facts are shortly as follows:-The parties are all Parsis, and occupied different flats in the same building, the plaintiff and her husband and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All270
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The assessee, Mishri Mal Gulab Chand, is a Hindu undivided family doing business at Beawar, Ajmer-Merwara. The relevant assessment year is 1944-45. In the relevant account year, the assessee was a resident and ordinarily resident in British India. The asses-see had speculated individually and in partnership in various commodities in British India and also in Indian States. From its individual business carried on in British India the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 38,473, while from its individual business in the Indian States it suffered a loss of Rs. 25,391. In computing total income from business of the assessee the Income-tax Officer did not debit the loss suffered in Indian States. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Income-tax Commissioner and held that the first proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act did not apply. On an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1913)24MLJ135
ORDERAyling, J.1. The facts of the case are fully and clearly set forth in the judgment of my learned brother, which I have had the advantage of perusing. The only point with which we are concerned is whether the Subordinate Judge was entitled to reduce the rate of interest specified in the suit bond.2. As regards the preliminary objection that the matter is covered by the oath taken by the plaintiff and that the defendant is thereby precluded from asking for relief against the high rate of interest, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judge who disposed of the revision petition. Apart from this, the question whether the decree of the Subordinate Judge, in so far as it modified the terms of the contract as regards interest, should be upheld, is one of some difficulty; and, with all diffidence, I may say that it seems to me of the utmost importance to observe the distinction between what a court may do and what a court should do. The matter is considered from both points o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad243
ORDER1. These are applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners who were detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, (Act I [1] of 1947). As these petitions raised some common questions of law, we thought it convenient to hear and dispose of these questions before considering the merits of each application. The orders of detention under the Act in all the petitions except four, Cri. M. Ps. Nos. 1645 and 1651 of 1949, 1527 and 1611 of 1949 were passed after 12th March 1948, and according to the petitioners on the date on which the orders of detention in these cases were passed, the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force and that therefore the orders of detention were without authority and were illegal.2. The maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Madras Act I [1] of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Act' in the course of this judgment, received the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal64
Markby, J.1. Two persons, Burah and Book Singh, have been convicted on a charge of murder by the Deputy Commissioner of the Cossyah and Jynteeah Hills and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to transportation for life by the Chief Commissioner of Assam on the 23rd April 1876.2. On the 9th July, 1870 the officer, in charge of the Kamrup jail forwarded to this Court petitions of appeal from these prisoners, unaccompanied by copies of the judgment.3. The first question which arises in the case is, whether the High Court has any power to entertain these applications; and this question is one of so much importance that it has been referred to a Full Bench, and has been on two occasions very fully argued.4. The Cossyah and Jynteeah Kills comprise a considerable tract of country on the eastern frontier of Bengal, and they contain a population which, in 1862, was estimated at 120,000. The Jynteeah Hills were formerly under the independent Rajah of Jynteeah. The Cossyah Hills were div...
Tag this Judgment!