Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal1,59Ind.Cas.143
Ashutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. On the 11th July 1919 Satis Chandra Chakrabarti, the petitioner in the present Rule, made an application to this Court and prayed that disciplinary action might be taken against Mr. Ramdayal De. a Vakil of this Court, who had acted on behalf of one Chandra Kumar Chakrabarti with whom he had been involved in a protracted litigation, It is not necessary for our present purpose to narrate the history or review the progress of that litigation; it is sufficient to state that the application made by the petitioner contained grave charges of misconduct against Mr. De. The application was supported by an affidavit which recited that the facts mentioned in the petition were true to the knowledge of the deponent except those contained in paragraphs 10, 25 and 27, and that a part of paragraphs 4, 47 and 50 were true to his information and belief. The application was heard in the first instance by Fletcher and Duval, JJ. On the 17th July 1919 the matter was referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom276
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. In the year 1898 certain improvements were projected in the City of Bombay, and an Act called the City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, was passed giving to a Board thereby constituted certain powers with a view to carry these improvements into effect.2. On the 25th September, 1902, there was published in the Bombay Government Gazette a declaration purporting to be in pursuance of the Act, stating that the Governor of Bombay in Council had sanctioned a street scheme made by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay under the provisions of the Act (that being the style of the Board thereby constituted) and that certain lands, including those in suit, were 'needed to be acquired by the said Trustees for the purposes of executing the said street scheme' and were required for a public purpose.3. On the 27th November, 1902, the plaintiffs received notices addressed to Pandurang Nilaji, their deceased father, and also to each of them in the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR821
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This revisional application raises some interesting questions affecting the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to try the case in pursuance of the charge-sheet submitted by the prosecution against the accused. The material facts which give rise to the said points of law are not in dispute. The petitioner is a graduate in law and had been employed as a Legal Assistant to the Director of Civil Supplies Accounts, Bombay. As such he is a public servant. The police received information from one Shivlal that as such public servant the petitioner was demanding a reward of Rs. 100 from Shivlal for having done an official act. The said Shivlal had entered into a contract with the Government of Bombay, Food Department, in January 1947, for the supply of certain commodities and had deposited Rs. 1,000 with the Government for fulfilment of the said contract. Shivlal was, however, unable to perform the contract and had applied to the petitioner for cancellation of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1945Bom200; (1945)47BOMLR27
Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. On the hearing of Second Appeal No. 549 of 1941 Mr. Justice Lokur and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha having found a conflict of authorities about the interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, read with Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, referred the following question for the decision of a full bench:Having regard to Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, is the plaintiff in a suit governed by Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for the purpose of limitation entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act?2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows. On March 6, 1929, the original three defendants passed a promissory note for Rs. 1,200 in favour of the plaintiff. On August 11, 1932, defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff which was contended to be an acknowledgment of the liability under the promissory note. Relying on that letter, the plaintiff filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom88; (1936)38BOMLR34
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a suit in which the six plaintiffs sue the defendants for rent under a lease dated January 22, 1922. Defendant No. 1 is the original lessee under the lease, and he is sued by virtue of his express covenant to pay the rent. Defendant No. 2 is the assignee of the lease, and as against him a decree for payment of the rent was granted, and from that decree there is no appeal. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were sued in the capacity of partners with defendant No. 2. The suit was dismissed against them, and there is no appeal from that dismissal. So that the only question with which we have to deal on this appeal is the liability of defendant No. 1 on his express covenant for payment of the rent.2. The matter is one of very great importance to the parties, because the rent reserved under the lease was over Rs. 16,000 per month, the property, we are told, has fallen very much in value and cannot be underlet at anything like the rent reserved by the lease, and defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR525
Viscount Simon L.C., J.1. This appeal is brought, by leave of the Madras High Court, from an order of that Court dated November 5, 1937, dismissing the appellants' application that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Board of Revenue at Madras to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order made by the Collective Board, on October 9, 1936, under Section 172 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.2. The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should 'be certified' of the proceedings to be investigated and the object is to secure, by the exercise of the authority of a superior Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. This writ does not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom82; (1922)24BOMLR1284; 76Ind.Cas.115
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 2,000, or such other sum as may be found due on the accounts between them and the defendants, alleging that the plaintiffs had dealings with the defendants extending over a long period commencing in the year 1897. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 formed a joint family and had their business at Belgaum. All the defendants except defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 admitted the plaintiffs claim, but defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 contended that the plaintiffs' claim was out of time. It appears from the plaint that the date of the cause of action was first stated as follows:- 'On July 1, 1916, when the Receiver refused to pay off or in July 1917 when the defendants' shop was closed or in November 1916 i.e. at the end of the commercial year,' But apparently this was scored out and by an amendment the following was substituted for it 'from October 30, 1897, on respective dates on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR295
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for a declaration that the suit property consisting of land with buildings thereon was of the absolute ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, the Government represented by the Secretary of State for India in Council, from taking vacant possession of the land after removal of the superstructures. An alternative relief was also prayed that if it be held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the land under a lease of ninety-nine years, the Government should fix a reasonable amount for rent after the expiry of the lease but not take forcible possession of the same.2. The land in suit is situated in a prominent locality in the city of Ahmed-abad. Its present survey number is 4663 corresponding to old city survey Nos. 123 and 235 of L. Tikka No. 3 in the Raikhad ward of Ahmedabad city. Its area is 642 square yards. The plaintiffs' case in substance was that this lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom131; (1940)42BOMLR231
Blackwell, J.1. [After setting out facts, the judgment proceeded :] Section 476 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is as follows :-When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, ' Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after suchpreliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom216; (1940)42BOMLR428
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against an order mad by Mr. Justice Norman sitting singly in an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Belgaum. The appellant before us and another had filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Gokak for accounts and redemption of a mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. It related to two lands, survey No. 32 and survey No. 29: It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ravji and his brother Bapuji, since deceased, had mortgaged the whole of survey No. 32 and survey No. 29, pot No. 3, to one Datto Ramchandra Kalkundri. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were heirs of the mortgagee. They had transferred their mortgage rights in 1925 to defendant No. 4. In darkhast No. 54 of 1922 brought in execution of a decree obtained by one Vinayak Joshi against Ravji survey Nos. 29/3 and 32/3 were sold as belonging to Ravji, and were purchased by defendant No. 5. Defendants Nos. 6 a...
Tag this Judgment!