Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Court: privy council Year: 1914 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.072 seconds)

Oct 07 1914 (PC)

Blanche Somerset Taylor Vs. Charles George Bleach

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-07-1914

Reported in : AIR1915Bom50; (1915)17BOMLR56

Basil Scott, C.J.1. These are cross appeals from an order of the District Judge of Poona awarding a lump sum of Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the petitioner for permanent maintenance under Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869. The petitioner appeals on the ground that the sum awarded is not sufficient and that the Court should have secured to her a sum the interest of which would secure her at least Rs. 150 per mensem. The respondent appeals on the ground that the Court has no power to award payment of a lump sum and that if it had the power the sum awarded is excessive.2. First, as to the power of the Court to award payment of a lump sum.3. The material clause of Section 37 of the Divorce Act is the third. It gives the Court power to 'order that the husband shall, to the satisfaction of the Court, secure to the wife such gross sum of money, or such annual sum of money for any term not exceeding her own life, as having regard' etc.4. As the sentence is punctuated in the State publ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1914 (PC)

Miss Blanche Somerset Taylor Vs. Charles George Bleach

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-07-1914

Reported in : (1915)ILR39Bom182

Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Those are cross appeals from an order of the District Judge of Poona awarding a lump sum of Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the petitioner for permanent maintenance under Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1809. The petitioner appeals on the ground that the sum awarded is not sufficient and that, the Court should Lave secured to her a sum the interest of which would secure her at least Rs. 150 per mensem. The respondent appeals on the ground that the Court has no power to award payment of a lump sum and that if it had the power the sum awarded is excessive.2. First, as to the power of the Court to award payment of a lump sum.3. The material clause of Section 37 of the Divorce Act is the third. It gives the Court power to 'order that the husband shall, to the satisfaction of the Court, secure to the wife such gross sum of money, or such annual sum of money for any term not exceeding her own life, as having regard' etc.4. As the sentence is punctuated in the stat...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1914 (PC)

Channing Arnold Vs. the Emperor

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-07-1914

Reported in : (1914)16BOMLR544

Shaw, J.1. By leave granted by His Majesty in Council this appeal is brought from a conviction of and sentence upon the appellant by the Chief Court of Lower Bu ma, pronounced on the 19th October 1913. The charge was one of defamation or criminal libel, and the prosecution was laid under the 21st chapter of the Indian Penal Code. In that chapter Section 499 gives a definition of defamation, and sets forth categorically no fewer than ten exceptions, any one of which forms a proper defence to the charge. By Section 500 it is provided that the punishment of defamation shall be ' simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'2. The appellant was charged with having defamed Mr. G.P. Andrew, Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Mergui, by the publication of two articles in the Burma Critic, a Rangoon newspaper, on the 28th April 1912. These articles were entitled 'A Mockery of British Justice.'3. Mr. Arnold has had experience as a journal...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1914 (PC)

Shashi Rajbanshi Vs. Emperor

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-01-1914

Reported in : (1915)ILR42Cal856

Fletcher, J.1. The accused Atlanta, Nani, Shashi, Gopal, Srikanta and Bolai were tried along with seven others, who have been acquitted, with having committed the offence of dacoity.2. The trial took place before the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad and a Jury. The six appellants before us were convicted and each sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Against that conviction and sentence they have appealed to this Court. The principal point that has been argued on this appeal is as to the legality of the trial before the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that the accused Shashi was tendered and accepted a pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure, on the 21st of April 1914, whilst the proceedings were pending before the Committing Magistrate. The Magistrate subsequently forfeited the pardon granted to Shashi and the magisterial inquiry was recommenced from the stage at which it was interrupted as against Shashi by the tender and acceptance of t...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1914 (PC)

Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Ksherode Chandra Pal and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-27-1914

Reported in : AIR1915Cal383,29Ind.Cas.843

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 1,300 being principal Rs. 80, and interest, Rs. 1,220, on a mortgage bond executed by three defendants on 1st Jaistha 1312.2. The transaction was an unusual one and the facts found require to be carefully stated as well as the circumstances which are admitted in connection with the giving of the mortgage-bond and recited in the bond itself.3. It appears that Abdul Majid, defendant No. 1, mortgaged 6 annas of a raiyati jote in which his brother, defendant No. 2, was also interested while defendant No. 3 a relative, mortgaged three 6-anna shares of jotes and an 8-anna share of a howla belonging exclusively to him.4. The three defendants had bid successfully at a sale of the land of one Nagarbashi Kundu and had deposited the earnest money. They were in immediate need of Rs. 80 to complete the purchase and applied to the former creditor of defendant No. 3, one harish Chandra Pal who had a mortgage on properties Nos...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1914 (PC)

Abdul Majeed Vs. Khirode Chandra Pal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-27-1914

Reported in : (1915)ILR42Cal690

Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out, of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 1,300, being principal Rs. 80 and interest Rs. 1,220 on a mortgage bond executed by three defendants on 1st Jaishta 1312.2. The transaction was an unusual one, and the facts found require to be carefully stated as well as the circumstances which are admitted in connection with the giving of the mortgage bond and recited in the bond itself.3. It appears that Abdul Majeed, defendant No. 1, mortgaged 6 annas of a raiyati jote in which his brother, defendant No. 2, was also interested, while defendant No. 3, a relative, mortgaged three six-annas shares of jotes and an eight-annas share of n howla belonging exclusively to him.4. The three defendants had bid successfully at a sale of the land of one Nagorbashi Kundu and had deposited the earnest money. They were in immediate need of Rs. 80 to complete the purchase and applied to the former creditor of defendant No. 3, one Harish Chandra Pal,...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 15 1914 (PC)

Khagaram Das Vs. Ramsankar Das Pramanik

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-15-1914

Reported in : AIR1915Cal796,(1915)ILR42Cal652

Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs to enforce a mortgage security executed in their favour on the 9th June 1904. The history of the transactions between the parties prior to the mortgage may be briefly narrated. On the 24th July 1895, the plaintiffs advanced to the defendants a sum of Rs. 375 to carry interest at 24 per cent, per annum. On the 25th January, 1899, the defendants gave the plaintiffs a bond for Rs. 600 in renewal of the promissory note of the 24th July 1895. The bond carried interest at the rate of 75 per cent, per annum. In 1901, the plaintiffs sued to recover their money. The Court held that the plaintiffs should not be allowed interest at 75 per cent, per annum, and made a decree for the amount named in the bond with interest at 24 per cent, per annum. The amount decreed was Rs. 1,060 and this carried interest at 6 per cent, per annum till realization. On the 8th June 1903, the plaintiffs advanced to the defendants a sum of Rs, 300 on a promissory note...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1914 (PC)

Sanyasi Charan Mandal Vs. Asutosh Ghose

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-17-1914

Reported in : AIR1915Cal482,(1915)ILR42Cal225

Mookerjee, J.1. Have you got the account books here showing the funds?]2. The receiver is in attendance here and says that these account books are in the lower Court.Mookerjee, J.3. How do you propose to get over the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act?4. All the property vests in the Receiver: see Lovell and Christmas v. Beauchamp [1894] A.C. 607.Mookerjee, J.5. Only the interest of the person declared insolvent vests in the receiver.]6. The Trustee in Bankruptcy takes four-fifths share, i.e., of the insolvents, and as receiver takes charge of one-fifth share of the minor till his status is decided in a title suit.Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.7. These appeals are directed against an order under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907. The circumstances under which the order in question has been made may be briefly narrated. One Bhuban Mohan Mandal left five sons: Nil Ratan, Amulya Charan, Satya Charan, Fatick Charan and Sanyasi Charan. During his life...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1914 (PC)

In Re: Nandamuri Anandayya

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-1914

Reported in : AIR1915Mad812; 25Ind.Cas.630

Ayling, J.1. Appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a statement, Exhibit B, given by him to the Head Constable in charge of Grudivada Police Station (Prosecution Witness No. 2) on 5th May 1912. In this statement he charges five persons (Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 5 to 9) with having robbed him of jewels and committed dacoity,2. We see no reason to distrust the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2; and we are satisfied that the statement, Exhibit B was given by appellant, and given with a fall knowledge of its purport and probable consequences. It is not suggested that the statements it contains as to the alleged dacoity are true and we have no doubt they are false.3. It has been argued, however, on various grounds that the conviction is bad in law and with these arguments we proceed to deal.4. The first contention is that the statements in Exhibit B cannot constitute an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, bec...

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1914 (PC)

Annie Besant Vs. G. Narayaniah

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-25-1914

Reported in : (1914)16BOMLR625

Parker of Waddington, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the High Court of Madras in its appellate jurisdiction on the 29th October 1913 confirming with a variation as to costs a decree of Mr. Justice Bake well in a suit in which G. Narayaniah (the present respondent) was plaintiff and Annie Besant (the present appellant) was defendant. The decree declared that J. Krishnamurti and J. Nityananda, the sons of the plaintiff, were wards of Court and that the plaintiff was guardian of their persons, and ordered the defendant to hand over the custody of the wards to the plaintiff as such guardian.2. The facts which gave rise to the action were as follows :- The plaintiff is a Hindu residing at Madras. Ha is a Brahmin but is not well off, having an income of some 160/. per annum only. He was for many years a member of a society called the Theosophical Society, of which the defendant was president, and was well acquainted with her. He had two sons, Krishnamurti and J. Nityananda, bor...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //