Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-10-1926
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR1334; 95Ind.Cas.556
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by a married woman for slander. The only defence now subsisting is that without proof of special damage the suit is not maintainable. Admittedly, no special damage is shown. Accordingly, the defence raises an important and interesting question of law, and has led to the able arguments of counsel ranging over a wide field.2. At the outset I should make it clear that the lady has already vindicated her honour. She has prosecuted the defendant under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation, and he has been convicted by a criminal Court and fined Rs. 50 or in default to suffer one month's imprisonment. His application to the High Court in revision was rejected, The only question is, whether in addition the plaintiff can recover damages in a civil suit. Her claim is for Rs. 10,000.3. The facts are shortly as follows:-The parties are all Parsis, and occupied different flats in the same building, the plaintiff and her husband and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-11-1926
Reported in : AIR1927Bom163; (1927)29BOMLR196
Shah, J.1. The papers relating to the inquisition touching the death of Umar Haji Yusuf Sobani have been submitted to this Court by the Coroner. In his letter of reference the Coroner has stated that the jury have returned a verdict which, in his opinion, is 'antagonistic with the evidence given by well-known medical men and with the circumstantial evidence in the case.' Notices were ordered to be issued by this Court to the parties who appeared on the record to be interested in the inquisition, namely, the Police Commissioner, the widow of the deceased, and the brother of the deceased. Before us now there is no appearance on behalf of the brother of the deceased, but the learned Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the Police Commissioner, and Mr. Velani has appeared on behalf of the widow of the deceased.2. As apparently this is the first case of its kind in which the Coroner has submitted the papers in order that the inquisition may be either amended or quashed, it is desirabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-11-1926
Reported in : 97Ind.Cas.961
N.R. Chatterjea, Acting C.J.1. The questions referred to the Fall Bench are:I. Whether upon a true construction of the Calcutta Police Act (_Ben. Act IV of 1866) a Deputy Commissioner of Police, by virtue of his powers as a Justice of the Peace or otherwise, can lawfully order the detention in Police custody of a person arrested without warrant, for any longer time than is necessary to enable such person to be brought before a Presidency Magistrate?II. Whether a Deputy Commissioner of Police can lawfully order that the detention of any such person as aforesaid at a Police Station or in Police custody shall continue until the Police investigation shall have been (a) further advanced, or (b) completed, notwithstanding that the time within which such person might have been brought before a Presidency Magistrate has elapsed?2. The powers of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police as a Justice of the Peace are defined in Section 7 of the Act, which runs as follows:The Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-1926
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR197; 108Ind.Cas.465
Crump, J.1. This is a petition by the Tata Iron Steel Company Limited under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. The members of the company are of four kinds :-(1) first preference shareholders; (2) second preference shareholders; (3) ordinary shareholders; and (4) deferred shareholders. The first preference shareholders are entitled to a fixed cumulative dividend at the rate of six per cent, per annum calculated on the profits of the company in any one year. The second preference shareholders are entitled to a similar dividend at the rate of seven and a half per cent, per annum. After these dividends have been paid, the ordinary shareholders are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to eight per cent,, and then the deferred shareholders come in, and are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to twenty-five per cent, per annum, That is to say, the profits, which it is determined to distribute every year are devoted to paying dividends first to first preference shareholders, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-06-1926
Reported in : AIR1927Mad85; (1926)51MLJ641
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the execution of the mortgage deed sued on, Ex. A, has been proved. The District Munsif held that it was validly executed and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that its execution was not properly proved. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The evidence of the two attesting witnesses is to the effect that they did not actually see the executant signing the document. P.W. 2 says:I did not see the and defendant sign Ex. A or the 1st defendant put her mark in it. It was written somewhere.3. P.W. 3 says:I was not present when Ex. A was written. The parties to it came to me and the defendants asked me to attest it saying they executed it.4. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge would be correct but for Act XXVII of 1926, for the law was that in order to prove the execution of a document the attesting witness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-24-1926
Reported in : AIR1926Mad865; (1927)52MLJ210
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Salem. The accused was committed to the Court of Session under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Sessions Judge held that the proceedings were started on a police report before the Magistrate and the proceedings were void and therefore the committal to the Sessions Court was illegal and acquitted the accused. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the initiation of the proceedings was not illegal and the committal therefore was right.2. The simple question for decision is whether the charge sheet in a non-cognizable case is a report or not. Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of a case '(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer, (c) upon information received from any person other than a police offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-02-1926
Reported in : AIR1927Mad304
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for possession of a house with mesne profits. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit but on appeal the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether Article 47 applies to the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff purchased the plaint house on 20th June 1919. There was a possession case between the plaintiff and the defendants in 1919 and the Subdivisional First Class Magistrate at Tanjore passed an order on 19th August 1919 in plaintiff's favour.3. The plaintiff presented his plaint on 21-12-22, that is, more than three years after the date of the order of the First Class Magistrate. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's suit ought to have been brought within three years of the order of the Magistrate. The question is, is the plaintiff in whose favour an order under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-19-1926
Reported in : AIR1926Cal1203
1. This is an application by O.W. Thomas who is a prisoner in the Presidency Jail, for leave to appeal, after determination of his status, against his conviction and against the sentence passed on him by Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose presiding at the Fourth Criminal Sessions held in this Court in July 1925.2. The prisoner was found guilty by a special jury of having committed an offence punishable under Section 471, and thereafter the learned Judge presiding at the Sessions sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. This was on the 27th July 1925.3. The present application was not presented to the learned Acting Chief Justice till the 16th February 1926. The question, therefore, arose whether, if the appeal itself had been presented on the 16th February 1926, it would have been within time. Learned Counsel, who appears in support of the application, suggests that the only matter for our determination at this stage is one under Section 449, Sub-clause 1(c) read w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-16-1926
Reported in : AIR1927Cal17
Rankin, J.1. In this case there are 5 appellants. They have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Assam Valley Districts sitting with a jury of seven. There had been a previous trial and the case was sent back by this Court to be re-tried. The jury on this occasion were unanimous.2. They have found all the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian P.C. Three of them have also been found guilty under Section 302 by itself while the other two have been found guilty under Section 324.3. The fifth appellant, Rasir Haji, is the father of Appellants 1, 3 and 4, Aimaddy, Johifaddy and Rahimaddy. The second appellant, Sayad Ali, is a friend and neighbour.4. The occurrence took place between 8 and 9 a.m. on the 7th March 1925. According to the prosecution it took place at the S.E. corner of the patta land of one Kimu where it abuts upon some khas land of which Basir and Sayed Ali were wanting to get settlement from Government. According to the defence it took p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-18-1926
Reported in : AIR1926Cal862
B.B.Ghose, J.1. These appeals arise out of three suits brought for recovery of possession of different plots of land. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the Munsif and has decreed the suits. The defendants appeal before us and the only point argued on their behalf is that the presumption under the record-of-rights under Section 103B of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not arise in these cases.2. What happened was this: The Subordinate Judge held that these plots of land according to the Cadastral Survey did not appertain to the defendant's holding, but appertained to the holding of the plaintiffs. It was contended before him by the defendants that the plaintiffs had got other co-shavers who were necessary parties and that the plaintiffs could not claim the entire interest in the plots in question. With reference to this contention, the learned Subordinate Judge observed as follows:The Settlement record...
Tag this Judgment!