Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal456
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a pltfs. appeal in a representative suit brought under Rule 8 of Order 1, Civil P. C., on behalf of the Hindus of the village of Alampur against the Muslims of the same village for a declaration that the suit land is one in which the public has got the right of use as playground or grazing ground etc., & for an injunction to restrain the defts. from using the land as a burial ground.2. The pltfs.' case is that in Khatian No. 159/1 of Mouza Alampur covering an area of 3 bighas & 1 cottah, 1 bigha & 2 cottahs was a graveyard of the Muslims of that village & the remaining 1 bigha and 19 cottah was used by the villagers as a football ground. This football ground is also claimed to be used as a grazing ground for the cattle of the villagers. There had been a previous litigation in respect of this property in 1928 when a representative suit was brought on behalf of the Muslims of that village for a declaration that the lands covered by the entire Khatian were bur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1946]14ITR10(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and comes to us direct from the Commissioner under the option given to the assessee by the 1940 Act. The reference arises out of an assessment to income-tax upon the assessee for the assessment year 1939-40 in respect of the accounting year previous, which in this case is the calendar year 1938.The assessee was assessed to income-tax by an assessment order dated March 23, 1939, in a total sum of Rs. 34,731, made up, as the assessment order shows, of income from four sources, namely salary (directors remuneration), profession, interest and a one-third share from the estate of a Mr. Kamdar. The item in dispute is Rs. 12,302, which, in the assessment order, is described as : 'Profession-Recoveries from outstandings during calendar year 1938 as per bill-book.'Before February 15, 1938, the assessee had carried on the business of a furniture dealer under the name of 'Kamdar Karyalaya,' and he also carri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1926Cal612,94Ind.Cas.762
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 709-10 as compensation for goods consigned by the plaintiff's agent for carriage by Railway which were not delivered to the plaintiff.2. It appears that 13 tins of ghee, and one tin of mustard oil, in 7 packages were consigned by the plaintiff's agent at Shahgunj a Station on the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway to the plaintiff at Howrah. Only one package (containing 1 tin of ghee and 1 tin of mustard oil) arrived at Howrah and the plaintiff was asked to take delivery thereof on giving a full acquittance receipt which he refused to do. The other 6 complete packages did not arrive at Howrah at all and were not delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon served a notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act upon the defendants and brought the suit for compensation.3. The Court of first instance allowed the claim in part. The Court of Appeal below dismissed the claim altogether. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.4. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom177; (1922)24BOMLR1111
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an originating summons taken out by the trustees for the construction of two deeds, one of August 13, 1879, and the other of July 19, 1888. The original summons stated the questions in a general form; but the questions for decision are stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Kanga, and we have ordered the summons to be so amended as to indicate in terms the points which we have to decide. On a further hearing of this appeal, we have directed further amendment of the summons, and as a result of that two more questions have been raised.2. It will be convenient to show in a tabular form the relationship of the parties interested in these questions:- Dhanabaiji (died in 1891). | Rustomji (dided in 1893) married Maneckbai | (died in 1897); --------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Framji (died in Ratanbai Edulji Gulbai Byramji 1908)=married (daughter) (died (daughter) (died in 1886; Havabai (died (deft. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR416; 67Ind.Cas.852
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad confirming the decree passed against the original first defendant by the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge.2. The plaintiff sued the East Indian Railway Company and the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company to recover Rs. 877-11-7 the value of a bale of goods known as Malidas of German make which was consigned in October 1915 by the plaintiff's agent from Howrah to Ahmedabad, and lost in transit. The first defendant company, relying on the fact that the plaintiff in his letter of the 23rd December 1915 described the goods in the bale as 170 pieces Shawls, contended that they came within the excepted articles referred to in Section 75 of Act IX of 1890 and as the consignor had failed to describe the nature of the goods and pay the proper rate for them, the company was not liable.3. The evidence shows that the goods were described as Malidas in the plaintiff's account books, and that each ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1946]14ITR431(All)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Badar Shoe Stores (hereinafter called the assessee).The statement of the case beings by saying that the necessary facts are set out in the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal and in greater detail in the assessment orders for the years 1939-40 and 1940-41. We deprecate the practice, which is becoming too common, of omitting a sufficient statement of facts from the statement of the case and of referring this Court to a miscellany of other documents for the collection of the full facts necessary for the determination of the question of law submitted, and we shall take the opportunity of referring to the unfortunate consequences if this practice at a later stage of this judgment.The assessee, a firm of which a certain Mr. Badr-Uzzaman was the proprietor, had carried on business as dealers in shoes at the Shoe Market Agra, since at least the beginning of the year 1936. For ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom347; (1939)41BOMLR530
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a suit in respect of an alleged infringement of copyright. Plaintiffs are a company having their registered office in London and are the present owners of a copyright in a musical work or composition called 'Classica', which copyright is still subsisting. They allege that the defendants infringed that copyright on March 23, 1937, by either performing the musical work or causing it to be performed on their premises without the plaintiffs' knowledge and consent. Plaintiffs have accordingly filed this suit for an injunction and damages through their constituted attorney Mr. Charles Mortimer Eastley, a partner of the firm of Messrs. Little & Co., attorneys of this Court.2. The defendants contended at first that the musical composition 'Classica' could not form the subject-matter of a copyright, and a commission was accordingly issued to England to take evidence on the point. That contention was, however, abandoned at the hearing. Defendants further denied that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad927a
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam dismissing petitioner's (appellants) application for execution in respect of certain interest. The question arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner apparently obtained a decree in O. S. 26 of 1910 against one Nataraja Ayyar, and an order for the payment of Rs. 20,000, odd in rateable distribution. Subsequently the respondents filed O. S. 22 of 1913 calling in question the validity of petitioner's decree and for an injunction to prevent petitioner from drawing, the Rs. 20,000. They also applied for and obtained an interim injunction from the subordinate judge. Petitioner appealed to this Court and on 16th January 1914 the Court made the following order Ex. A (p. 2). The respondent's suit, No. 22 of 1913, was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 22nd December 1915, and on appeal the High Court ordered a new trial on 19th October 1916. Previously on 28th January 1916, the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal584,66Ind.Cas.433
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has resulted in this appeal is a large tract of what is called Jalpai laud of the abolished Salt Department, situated in the district of Midnapur within the Zamindari of the Raja of Mahisadal. On the 8th July 1864 one Sunder Narain Maiti obtained a settlement from the Zemindar in respect of an estimated area of 400 bighas within specified boundaries. After the death of the original grantee, his son Taraprosad Maiti, on the 10th November 1874, took a confirmatory lease of 513 bighas, approximately, for the benefit of the family whereof he was the senior member. The relationship of the members of this family may be gathered from the following genealogical table: Sundar Narain Maiti Haimabati defendant No. 6, M. Sibnarain.Taraprosad, Ratmnarain, Lachminarain, Haraprosad,died 1897, defendant defendant (dead)m. Anand- No. 1, No. 2, m. Bimolamoyee, died m. Surno- m. (1) (dead).1893 moyee, Reshmoni, defendant defendant No. 10. No. 9, m. (2) Matang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR771; 17Ind.Cas.10
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The present suit was one for partition brought by the appellant. His allegation was that he, defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of defendant No. 1, and two brothers of his, Rama and Laxmana, were members of a joint family, and that in 1886 defendant No. 1, the eldest member and manager, effected a partition with Rama and Laxmana, so that these two brothers having become separated in estate left the rest of the members of the family including the plaintiff joint, and that in 1907 defendant No. 1 turned the plaintiff out of the family house, in which he was living with the said defendant. Hence the suit for partition.2. Defendant No. 1, in his written statement, pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to a share in the property, because there had been already a partition among the members of the' family in the year 1886. In support of that allegation he produced a farkhat executed by Rama and Laxmana and by Laxmana as the...
Tag this Judgment!