Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 71Ind.Cas.124
Walmsley, J.1. The three appellants were all charged under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and there were separate charges, against Abdul Gohur under Sections 372, 109, Indian Penal Code., against Erfan under Section 373, Indian Penal Code, and against Sarojini tinder Section 372, Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty on all the counts, and the learned Judge sentenced Abdul Gohur to three years rigorous imprisonment, and the other two to Tour years rigorous imprisonment each, all under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, but did not pass any separate sentences on the other charges.2. The girl in the case is Sukhoda, the daughter of Sarojini, and briefly stated the story is that Sarojini took her to Abdul Gohur's house and afterwards made her over to Erfan for purposes of cohabitation. The defence is that the woman became a Mussalman, and that Erfan wanted to warry the girl.3. So far as the charges under Sections 572 and 373, Indian Penal Code, are concerned, the age of the girl is an e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 28Ind.Cas.818
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a judgment of the learned First Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dated the 16th of May 1913, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that a kabala, dated the 7th June 1890, executed by the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards in favour of the late father of the defendant, and that a subsequent kabala, dated the 11th February 1901, executed in manner aforesaid in the like favour, are invalid and illegal, and for an order restoring the plaintiff to possession of the properties comprised in such kabalas and for certain alternative and consequential relief.2. The issues of law and fact were settled by the learned Judge on the 9th of December 1912.3. The defendant, on the 16th of February 1913, applied to the learned Judge for the trial of the 1st three issues under the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge assented to that application. The first three i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal802
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff firm, Sreelal Mangtulal, against the judgment of Mr. Justice Thornhill which was delivered on the 20th of June 1924.2. The suit was brought under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and was based, upon five hundis, four of which were dated the 19th of May 1922, and one was dated the 23rd of May 1922. In all material respects they were in the same form; and, it will be sufficient if I refer to that which is marked A. It was in these terms: 'Calcutta, 19th May 1922. One hundred and eighty days after date without grace I promise to pay to Messrs. Mitra and Sons or order the sum of rupees five thousand, only for value 'received in cash, Sd. Mrigendra Lal Mitra.' That document appears to be in the form of an ordinary promissory note; but for some reason, which is not apparent at present, it was accepted by Mrigendra Lal Mitra on the face of the document. It was endorsed by the payees, 'Mitra and Sons'. There was a further endorsem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 61Ind.Cas.923
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree was made on the 15th January 1920 and the appeal now before us was lodged in this Court on the 21st April 1920. It appears that, though in the interval, the final decree had been made on the 16th March 1920, the appeal is directed only against the preliminary decree and Dot against the final decree. In these circumstances, an objection has been taken by the respondent that the appeal is incompetent, on the authority of the decision in Mackenzie v. Lala Narsing Sahai 1 Ind. Cas. 510 : 18 C.L.J. 223; This preliminary objection is manifestly well founded on principle, for if we were now to reverse the preliminary decree at the instance of the appellant, the final decree would still remain unaffected, as no attempt has been made to challenge the propriety of that decree. But our attention has been drawn by the appellants to the ease of Khirodatraye Dasi v. Adhar Chandra Ghose 21 Ind. Cas. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 13th November 1924, reversing a judgment and order dated 3rd November 1922, of a single Judge of the same High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. These orders were made in the matter of a petition presented to the Court on 1st May 1922, for the compulsory winding-up of the appellant company. By the order of 3rd November 1922, Kumaraswami Sastri, J., dismissed the petition with costs. On appeal his order was discharged by that of 13th November 1924, and the compulsory winding-up of the company was thereby decreed. This appeal from that order reached the Board for hearing more than six years after it had been made. Its discharge accordingly involved the supersession of all proceedings in a liquidation which as a result of it had then been in operation for more than eight years. To this fact are attributable the grave difficulties which have confronted the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom6; (1914)16BOMLR195
Shah, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, arising under the following circumstances:-2. A suit was brought by one Gangappa Rudrappa Hundekar in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur substantially to have it declared that he was the adopted son of the deceased Rudrappa Hundekar against Chanbasava kon Rudrappa and others. The suit was decided on the 12th February 1909 in favour of the plaintiff. Chanbasava preferred Appeal No. 61 of 1909 to this Court against the decree in the said suit. On the 7th August 1909 an application was made by one Virupakshappa to be joined as a co-appellant with Chanbasava and to continue the appeal with her alleging that he was adopted by Chanbasava on the 12th May 1909. The application was granted on the 13th August 1909 subject to any objections the respondents might have to urge at the hearing. Chanbasava is stated to have died about 15th October 1910 but apparently no application was made by any o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom284; (1923)25BOMLR289; 73Ind.Cas.304
Marten, J.1. This suit consists of a petition for divorce by the wife against her husband on the ground of his alleged adultery, cruelty and desertion, and a cross-petition brought by the husband against the wife and a co-respondent named Nicola Kandelaft asking for a divorce on the ground of the wife's adultery.2. On the wife's petition being called on and after I had read the two petitions, I asked counsel for the wife whether he was in a position to put his client into the box to deny the accusations against her which had been made in the husband's petition. They included in particular an allegation that the wife had travelled with the co-respondent in the same cabin from Bombay to Marseilles by the steamer Loyalty in December 1919 and that the only other occupant of that cabin was a small boy aged eight or thereabouts. Mr. Davar admitted that his client had travelled on that steamer and, after consulting his client, he told the Court that he was not in a position to call his client...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1942Bom305; (1942)44BOMLR673
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the appellate Judge dismissing his suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in passing through their open site while coming out from his house and also from obstructing the passage of the water of his bath room through the said open site. The facts found are that the plaintiff is a purchaser in a Court-sale of a house belonging to defendant No. 1, who is the main contestant in the suit and whom I will, therefore, call the defendant. At the time when the property was purchased by the plaintiff there was a door in the southern wall of that house from which there was an access to an open piece of land belonging to the defendant through which there was a way to go towards the west. There was also an outlet; in the southern wall for passage of the water of the house into that open piece of land. The plaintiff claimed the right of way through the door and the right to discharge water...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR739
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, N. W. Frontier Province, allowing an appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Mardan, who had made a decree in favour of (the plaintiff. By the decree on appeal the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with] costs.2. The suit was commenced by a plaint dated July 25, 1929, based upon a deposit receipt dated April 1, 1917, to recover the principal sum of Rs. 43,900 said to have been deposited with the defendants on deposit account with interest at the agreed rate of five and a quarter per cent, per annum. The alleged deposit receipt bore only an affixed stamp of one anna, and the Subordinate Judge in framing the issues stated as the first issue the question whether the document fell within the definition of a promissory note and was it therefore not admissible in evidence. Without hearing any evidence as to the circumstances in which the document came into existence he decided this issue as a preliminary point...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR979
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of the Calcutta High Court, dated June 18, 1946, affirming with slight variation, the decision of a single Judge of the Original Side of that Court, dated August 14, 1944.The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was one for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain shares in a private limited company, together with fractional interest in a partnership business, and it was commenced by two plaintiffs, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal, against four defendants, two of whom, viz., defendants Nos. '5 and 4, figure as appellants before us. Of the other two defendants, defendant No. 2 is not a party to this appeal at all, inasmuch as the suit against him was withdrawn and dismissed in the trial Court and his name was struck off from the list of defendants altogether. As regards defendant No. 1, though he was retained as a party, the plaintiff's gave up their claim against him before the hearing...
Tag this Judgment!