Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-04-1928
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR62
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, ordering the applicant to surrender herself on a warrant dated April 20, 1928, issued by the Resident at Baroda, or in the alternative to give bail as required by the warrant to attend before the Second Class Magistrate at Navsari in the Baroda State. The warrant is issued under the provisions of Article 7 of the Indian Extradition Act (XV of 1903). It recites that the applicant Bai Aisha (Mabel Ferris alias Isa Badruddin) wife of Akuji Isabji of Taluka Navsari, stands charged with having committed in the Baroda State the offences of criminal breach of trust and theft, which in British India would be punishable under Sections 406 and 380 of the pndian Penal Code.2. It appears that on July 17, 1927, the Bombay Police had at she instance of the Baroda Police arrested the applicant for the same alleged offence. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time as the extradition warrant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-21-1928
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR1242
Blanesburgh, J.1. This suit, commenced on January 10, 1920, in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, was, in its inception, a simple action by a purchaser for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain valuable hereditaments on Malabar Hill in Bombay with claims for damages additional or alternative all in terms of Section 19 of the Specific Belief Act, 187 7. The defences to the suit wore that there never had been any concluded contract for the sale of the property : if there had been such a contract it had been entered into on behalf of the defendant by an agent with no authority to bind her to its terms. There is in the defendant's written statement no suggestion that the plaintiff's right was not a right to specific relief, if any existent contract binding upon the defendant was established. And the case, indeed, was one in which upon proof by the plaintiff of the facts alleged by him, he became entitled as of right under Section 12(o) of the Act to the specif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-19-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom421; (1928)30BOMLR970; 113Ind.Cas.511
Patkar, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought against the G.I.P. Railway in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur on March 10, 1925, and June 29, 1925, respectively. On July 1, 1925, the G.I.P. Railway became a state managed railway, and in September 1925, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge returned the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, on the ground that the Secretary of State for India in Council being joined as a party to the suits, he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The plaints were presented to the District Court and numbered as Suits Nos. 4 and 11 of 1925.2. The learned District Judge raised a preliminary issue 'whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code,' and found on the issue in the affirmative and rejected the plaints.3. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been properly construed, that the suits were already instituted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-17-1928
Reported in : 113Ind.Cas.49
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on the 30th April, 1928, should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on the 14th January, 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October, 1920, and that after an appeal to the District Court a second appeal was filed in the High Court by the present applicants on 4th October, 1926. Under certain ruled of this Court it was laid before Mr. Justice Mallik for disposal on or about the 4th April, 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed, the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1928
Reported in : 115Ind.Cas.486
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Company, Limited, against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March, 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the Company, for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the Company by reason of their several acts of fraud and misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April, 1922, and the final judgment on 4th April, 1924 Defendant No. 1 has not appealed but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The Company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1928
Reported in : AIR1929Mad353
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Co. Ltd., against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the company, and for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the company by reason of their several acts of fraud and. misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April 1922 and the final judgment on 4th April 1924. Defendant 1 had not appealed, but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various matters fall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-11-1928
Reported in : AIR1929Mad334; 115Ind.Cas.157
Ramesam, J.1. These revision petitions are filed against the orders of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.P. Nos. 42 of 1927, 131 of 1926, 159, 110. 126, 55, 53, 80, 169, 24 and 70 of 1927 and 2 and 32 of 1928. The point for decision is what is the correct Court-fee payable on these petitions under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act II of 1927. Under Schedule II of the said Act the Court fee on an application to modify or set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments under Section 84(1) of the Act is the Court-fee leviable on a plaint under Article 17, Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act, 1922. The right to apply to set aside the decision was conferred by Section 84, Clause (2) when we refer to Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922, we find there are Articles numbered 17, 17-A and 17-B. The first question that arises is whether 'Art. 17' in the Madras Court Fees Amendment includes 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-10-1928
Reported in : AIR1929Cal714,121Ind.Cas.741
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiffs' claim against the defandants is for the balance of a current account. The defendants Amar Nath Banerjee and Hiralal Mukherjee do not contest the suit. It is admitted that the defendants carried on business in partnership under the firm name of Banerjee Mukherjee & Co., and opened an overdraft account with the plaintiff bank, which is now in liquidation and it was arranged that each partner should be eligible to sign cheques in the firm name, adding thereto his own initials, and that the bank would advance money to enable the defendants to purchase materials and on receipt of the bills given in payment for goods supplied by defendants to customers would collect these on commission and deduct the balance from the overdraft. The defendant Jatindra Nath, however, says that this partnership was dissolved in 1921, and that the plaintiffs had notice thereof. That thereupon he ceased to have any interest in the business, which was carried on by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-31-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Cal657
Costello, J.1. This is a petition by Margaret Barnard praying for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent George Henry Barnard on the ground of his adultery with a woman unknown on 17th November 1927. The petitioner was married to the respondent on 18fch October 1917 according to the rights of the Christian Church at the Wesleyan Churoh at Jhansi. At the time of the marriage the respondent was domiciled in England and before her marriage the petitioner was also domiciled in England and after the marriage they retained their English domicile. It was duly averred in the petition that the respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition was domiciled in England. It may therefore be taken that when this petition was filed both the parties to the marriage were domiciled in England. Both the parties to the marriage profess the Christian religion. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner that after her marriage she and the respondent lived and cohabited together firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-17-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Cal640
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on 30th April 1928 should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on 14th January 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October 1920 and that after an appeal to the District Court asecond appeal was filed in this High Court by the present applicants on 4th October 1926. Under certain rules of this Court it was laid before Mallik, J. for disposal on or about 4th April 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumstances it is plain enough that the applican...
Tag this Judgment!