Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-05-1932
Reported in : AIR1933Bom132; (1933)35BOMLR163
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Belgaum, who confirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bail-Hongal. The plaintiff-Municipality sue defendant No. 1 (with defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as sureties) for the balance of a sum of Rs. 1,076-13-0 which he had to pay under a contract in the form of a lease dated March 20, 1926, (Exhibit 16), by which the Municipality let to the defendant for the sum of Us. 4,500 the right of recovering jakat from March 15, 1926, until October 6, 1926, from all pilgrims to Shree Yellamma Devi, vehicles and animals. Then, in the contract the rates to be charged on persons, vehicles and animals are specified. The first charge is on every person above five years of age one anna and the other charges are on animals and vehicles. The defendant paid part of the consideration, but he has not paid the last instalment for which the Municipality now sue.2. The defence of the defendant is that it was beyond the power of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1932
Reported in : AIR1932Mad605; (1932)63MLJ764
Reilly, J.1. This. Civil Revision Petition comes before us on the question what is the proper court-fee to be paid on the plaint in the suit concerned. In the plaint the prayers are for a declaration that the decree obtained by Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 302 of 1916 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Bhimavaram is void, for setting aside that decree, if necessary, and for recovery of the property, covered by the decree. The Plaintiff valued the suit for court-fee as if it came under Clause (c) of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. The Defendants objected and said that in its nature this was a suit for the cancellation of the previous decree and that therefore the Plaintiff should pay court-fee under Section 7(iv-A) of the Act, i.e., under the new Sub-section introduced into the Act for this Presidency in 1922. The Subordinate Judge after hearing arguments on the question came to the conclusion that the suit was really one for possession of the property and therefore that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-11-1932
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR568; 152Ind.Cas.947
Mirza, J.1. This suit has arisen out of an unfortunate dispute between the plaintiffs who are the Municipal Corporation of the city of Bombay and as such represent the interests of the rate-payers of that city, and the defendant who is the Secretary of State for India in Council and as such represents in this case the interests of the tax-payers of the Bombay Presidency. The dispute is in respect of the liability of the Secretary of State for India in Council to contribute a certain amount annually towards defraying the expenses of primary education in the city of Bombay, under an arrangement said to have been arrived at between the Bombay Government and the plaintiff Municipality. [After referring to the efforts made to settle the dispute between the parties, his Lordship proceeded:]2. The case for the plaintiffs is that as the result of certain negotiations in the years 1916 and 1917 a contract was eventually arrived at between the plaintiffs and the Government of Bombay by which the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-22-1932
Reported in : AIR1932Bom468; (1932)34BOMLR917
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 23 of the Indian Press Act, 1931, asking us to set aside two orders passed by the Government of Bombay on March 11, 1932, made under Section 3, Sub-section (3) and Section 7, Sub-section (3) of that Act. Under Section 3, Sub-section (3), whenever it appears to the Local Government that any printing press is used for printing or publishing any newspaper containing any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4, Sub-section (1), the Local Government may, by notice in writing to the keeper of the press stating or describing such words, signs or visible representations, order the keeper to deposit with the Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the press is situated, security to such an amount not exceeding three thousand rupees as the Local Government may think fit to require. Section 7, Sub-section (3), confers similar powers on Government in respect of a publisher of a newspaper. The present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-16-1932
Reported in : AIR1933Bom217; (1933)35BOMLR252
Patkar, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits Nos. 588 of 1924 and 587 of 1924. Suit No. 588 of 1924 relates to two mortgages, (1) Exhibit 160, dated October 31, 1912, in favour of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for Rs. 15,000 passed by defendant No. 4, the Mutawalli of the properties attached to the Juma Masjid and the dargas of Nasiruddin and Abdul Hamid situated at Navsari, and (2) Exhibit 159, dated March 17, 1910, in favour of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 passed by defendant No. 4 for Rs. 1,500. The companion suit No. 587 of 1924 relates to a sale-deed dated July 31, 1918, for Rs. 6,845, Exhibit 124, passed by defendant No. 4 and his mother.2. The plaintiff is now appointed a Mutawalli of the wakf property and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the trustees of the mosque in the Baroda territory to which the wakf relates. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the mortgagees under the mortgage-deeds, Exhibits 159 and 160 in suit No. 588, and defendant No. 8 is another mortgagee o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-16-1932
Reported in : AIR1934Mad231
Ramesam, J.1. These are two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of certain proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Ch. 11, Madras Estates Land Act. In C.M.P. No. 645 the petitioner is the zamindarni of Mandasa in the Ganjam District. In C.M.P. No. 5155 the petitioner is the zamindar of Seitur in the Bamnad District. Connected with the latter petition are C.M.Ps. Nos. 2310 of 1931 and 2074 of 1932 in which the petitioners are different sets of tenants in the zamindari of Seitur. In all the petitions the first important point that arises for decision is whether a writ can be issued in respect of proceedings passed by the Board of Revenue under Ch. 11, Madras Estates Land Act.2. The zamindarni of Mandasa had previously filed C.R.P. No. 192 of 1926 to the High Court in connexion with the same matter. At the time when, the revision petition was filed, that is, on 17th December 1925, there was a decision of Devadoas and Waller, JJ., which held in V. Narasimha Rao v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-26-1932
Reported in : AIR1933Mad123; 140Ind.Cas.767; (1932)63MLJ906
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner was the first accused in the case tried by the learned 4th Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The case against him was that at 4 A.M. on the 5th April, 1932, he instigated the 2nd accused to paint on the surface of the road the words ' Boycott British goods'. In consequence of his abetment, and in his presence, accused 2 painted the word ' Boycott' on the road, and then was arrested by a Head Constable of the C.I.D. He has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) and under Section 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), and has been sentenced for each offence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, the sentences to run concurrently.2. It is contended in the first place that on the facts found the petitioner could only have been found guilty of abetment of the offences if any committed by the second accused. He was not charged with abetment, but with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-20-1932
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR1523
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we have already held that we possess powers of superintendence. But the exercise of a power of superintendence is not the same thing as the hearing of an appeal. We have, I think, a discretion to revise or Bet aside any conviction under our powers of superintendence; but we must exercise our discretion on judicial grounds, and only interfere if considerations of justice require us to do so. It is suggested in this case that the order was illegal for this reason. The order was originally made by the District Magistrate ofSholapur, and it is an order which in terms has to be carried out within the District of Sholapur. But the order was served on the accused when he was in jail at Bijapur. The rights of the District Magistrate arise in this way. Section 57 of the Ordinance authorises the Local Government to invest the DistrictMagistrate with the powers of the Local Government under Sub-section of Section 4, and in pursuance of that authority the Lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-16-1932
Reported in : (1933)65MLJ423
ORDERRamesam, J.1. These are two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of certain proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act. In C.M.P. No. 6459 the petitioner is the Zamindarini of Mandasa in the Ganjam District. In C.M.P. No. 5155 the petitioner is the Zamindar of Seitur in the Ramnad District. Connected with the latter petition are C.M.Ps. Nos. 2310 of 1931 and 2074 of 1932 in which the petitioners are different sets of tenants in the Zamindari of Seitur. In all the petitions the first important point that arises for decision is whether a writ can be issued in respect of proceedings passed by the Board of Revenue under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The Zamindarini of Mandasa had previously filed C.R.P. No. 192 of 1926 to the High Court in connection with the same matter. At the time when the revision petition was filed, that is, on 17th December, 1925, there was a decision of Devadoss and Waller, JJ., which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-08-1932
Reported in : AIR1933Bom245; (1933)35BOMLR388; 145Ind.Cas.164
Rangnekar, J.1. These two appeals and the revision application arise out of suits filed by one Balkrishna against the defendants to recover the amounts due to him on promissory notes passed in favour of 'the shop of Balkrishna Saraf'. Shortly after the institution of the suit Balkrishna died, and on an application by his two sons, Umakant and Narhari, the plaint was amended and they were brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff'. The principle suit in which evidence was recorded was suit No. 61 of 1925. The defendants put in a written statement in December, 1925, and the main defence was that the claim of the plaintiffs under the promissory note was satisfied by payment made to Narhari, the younger son, in respect of which the latter had passed a receipt. It may be stated that the total principal sum due to the 'shop of Balkrishna Waman Saraf' was about Rs. 5,380 exclusive of costs and interest. Besides that there was an outstanding decree for Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!