Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal470
Sharfuddin and Richardson JJ.1. This Rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside, on the ground that the order of the Commissioner of Police, dated the 4th August, 1912, does not come within the scope of Clause (4) of Section 62A of the Calcutta Police Act (Beng. IV of 1866), and. Clause (4) of Section 39A of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act (Beng. II of 1866). The two sections are in identical terms, and were inserted in the Acts referred to by the Calcutta and Suburban Police (Amendment) Act (Beng. III of 1910).2. Clause (4) runs as follows: 'The Commissioner of Police may also, by order in writing, prohibit any procession or public assembly, whenever and for so long as he considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety: Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than seven days without the sanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom213; (1943)45BOMLR434
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether in the Broach District of the Bombay Province, which is governed by the law of the Mitakshara and the Mayukha, a full sister is a preferential heir to a half sister. The question arises in an administration suit relating to the estate of Bhikhabhai Ranchhod, who died on October 11, 1935. He was succeeded by his mother Laxmi, the second wife of Ranchhod. She died on April 10, 1927. Plaintiff is Ranchhod's daughter by his first wife who predeceased him and is therefore the half sister of Bhikhabhai, the last male holder. Defendant No. 1 is Laxmi's daughter and therefore Bhikhabai's full sister. The plaintiff's claim to share equally with defendant No. 1 is based on the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act II of 1929 The suit has been dismissed by the lower Courts on the ground that the plaintiff as half sister is excluded by the full sister.2. Apart from Act II of 1929 it is conceded that the plaintiff has no case. The pref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1912)ILR39Cal1016
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of ijara rent, based upon an ijara kabuliyat executed by the defendant in favour of the predecessor in intei'est of the plaintiffs, whereby the defendant undertook to collect rent of 48 and odd has of lands for three years and agreed to pay to the lessor Rs. 400 a year.2. The defence was that the contract was not completed, as no pottah was granted by the lessor, that the lessor never allowed the defendant to take possession of the lands, that one hal of land (nine plots) which really belonged to the defendant had been fraudulently included in the kabuliyat which was executed with out full knowledge of its contents, and that as the kabuliyat was not corrected the defendant surrendered; the lease, that the kdbuliyat was never acted upon and that the defendant was not, therefore, liable to pay anything.3. The Court of first instance, finding all the above pleas in favour of the defendant, dismissed the suit. On appeal, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom40
West, J.1. This is an application for transfer from the First Class Magistrate's Court at Karmala in the Sholapur-Bijapur District to the Court of one of the Presidency Magistrates of a complaint lodged by the wife of the petitioner against him for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner it appears that he is a resident of Bombay, having lived here for upwards of ten years with his wife the opponent. He allowed her to go to her parents at Karmala in 1882 and she has not since returned to Bombay.3. A rule nisi was granted by this Court calling upon the Opponent (the wife) to show cause why the proceedings in the matter before the First Class Magistrate at Karmala should not be quashed as having been held without jurisdiction, or, if jurisdiction were found to exist, why the inquiry should not be transferred to the Presidency Magistrate's Court at Bombay. The, rule has been argued at great length by the pleaders of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All846
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a written contract. Originally seven defendants filed this appeal jointly. With the exception of Bansidhar all the others applied to withdraw the appeal. So far as the adult appellants were concerned, their appeal has been withdrawn and they have submitted to the decree of the Court below. An application was made on behalf of the minor appellant, Har Mohan, by his guardian and also by his mother to withdraw the appeal, but no order was passed, inasmuch as it was not clear whether there had been any compromise with the minor's guardian and whether such a compromise was for the benefit of the minor.2. The parties belong to the same family with distinct branches. It appears that at one time all the members had a common fund, though the family was not joint in status. The leading members proposed to purchase three villages in Benares from Raja Madho Lal for a sum of Rs. 90,200. The plaintiff Ata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 46Ind.Cas.593
John Woodroffe, J.1. This matter has been referred to me on a difference of opinion between my brothers Chitty, J. and Smither, J. It is to be observed that there were before them three revision cases and one appeal. Strictly the revision cases and the appeal should have been dealt with separately. If this had been done, then in the appeal the matter would have stood in this way. The trial from which the appeal arises, was heard ex parte. There was then in this case only the prosecution evidence and no cross-examination, It is doubtful whether under these circumstances the appeal, in which the facts were open, could succeed unless a retrial was ordered. And it was doubtless for this reason that the accused asked for a retrial in the event of the Court holding that a prima facie case had been made oat. Again in the revision cases the Court would not ordinarily interfere*' on a question of fact. However, the cases were ordered to be heard together and apparently the evidence taken in one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD MACMILLAN: On 10th June 1929 the schooner "Dorothy M. Smart"sailed for "the high seas"from the French island of St. Pierre with a cargo on board of rum and other liquors, which are dutiable under Canadian law. The vessel was registered in Nova Scotia and with her cargo was the property of the respondent, who is resident in Nova Scotia. On 13th June 1929 the schooner, when at a distance of 11 miles from the coast of Nova Scotia, was boarded by the appellant, an officer in the Customs service of the Canadian Government. The cargo having been found to consist of dutiable goods, the vessel and cargo were seized and taken into port. The validity of the seizure, which was effected in pursuance of powers conferred by the Customs Act of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, c. 42, as amended by 18 and 19 Geo. 5, c. 16, is challenged in the present proceedings on the broad ground that the Parliament of the Dominion in conferring the powers in question exceeded its legislative competence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All787
Boys, J.1. This criminal revision No. 210, and the other criminal revisions Nos. 205, 206, 209 arid 211, deal with two incidents of satta gambling. The cases Nos. 206, 209, 210 and 211 are the cases of Tulsi Das, Lachmi Narain, Budha, Thakur Das and Nehal Chand. The case No. 205 is that of Ghisa, Pershadi, Manohar and Kallu.2. To deal now with the case No. 210, this man, Tulshi Das, was charged with a number of others with gambling in the satta form, i.e., with betting or taking bets on opium price figures, in a public place--an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, III of 1867, as amended by the United Provinces Act I of 1917. The section, as amended, reads: 'any person found gaming in any public street, place or thoroughfare,' and by the same Acts 'gaming' includes 'wagering.' The nine men, whose cases are before me, were, in their respective two groups, charged in effect with being book makers, i.e. with keeping premises for the purposes of betting and themselves taking bets...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal160
Maclean, C.J.1. On the 17th December 1892, the Vice-Chairman of the Hooghly and Chinsurah Municipality wrote and sent to the plaintiff in this suit the following notice:Sir,---By a resolution of the Commissioners at a general meeting held on the 9th September last your prayer to allow the sajah to be made was disallowed. I therefore request that you will be good enough to remove the iron brackets put up against your house within eight days from the date of receipt of this letter, otherwise necessary steps should he taken for their removal.2. I understand and I have specially asked the question that no other notice was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff.3. The first question which we have to decide is whether, having regard to the terms of Section 204 of Bengal Act III of 1884, the Municipality were justified, under the circumstances of this case, in giving a notice, which admittedly the above document purported to be, under that Section. The Municipality admit that they considered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1915)ILR38Mad6
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the owner of a house in Bellary for a declaration of his right to a pial and for restraining the Municipal Council of the town from removing it. At the instance of the Municipal Council the Secretary of State for India in Council was made a party to the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the pial belonged to him and that the Municipal Council had therefore no right to remove it as it threatened to do. The Council denied the plaintiff's right to the site of the pial, and the Government set up its ownership to the site. The issues framed in the suit raised the questions, how long the suit pial was in existence, whether the plaintiff acquired a prescriptive title to the site of the pial if he was not the original owner, and whether the Municipality was entitled to demolish it.2. Both Courts have found that the street was dedicated to the public by the Government. The houses were built on sites originally belonging to Government which it gave to the p...
Tag this Judgment!