Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-05-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Cal298
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. These two rules were issued at the instance of the defendants upon the plaintiff opposite party in a suit instituted in the Court of the Small Causes, Sealdah for recovery of damages. The case of the plaintiff opposite party briefly stated is as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of Premises. 25 and 25 A Harish Mukerji Road Bhowanipur P.S. on 7th June 1933 and 8th June 1933 defendant 2 i.e., Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. served notices upon him demanding payment of the charge for supplying electric current and intimating that on failure thereof the supply would be cut off. The amounts covered by the said notices were paid in time by the plaintiff. No notice of discontinuing the current of the aforesaid premises on account of their arrears was ever served on him. He was never informed by defendant 2 that the electric connexion of the said premises would be cut off, for non-payment of the charges for supplying energy to his other premises. Though nothing was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Bom88; (1936)38BOMLR34
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a suit in which the six plaintiffs sue the defendants for rent under a lease dated January 22, 1922. Defendant No. 1 is the original lessee under the lease, and he is sued by virtue of his express covenant to pay the rent. Defendant No. 2 is the assignee of the lease, and as against him a decree for payment of the rent was granted, and from that decree there is no appeal. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were sued in the capacity of partners with defendant No. 2. The suit was dismissed against them, and there is no appeal from that dismissal. So that the only question with which we have to deal on this appeal is the liability of defendant No. 1 on his express covenant for payment of the rent.2. The matter is one of very great importance to the parties, because the rent reserved under the lease was over Rs. 16,000 per month, the property, we are told, has fallen very much in value and cannot be underlet at anything like the rent reserved by the lease, and defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-27-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All706; 157Ind.Cas.157
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption of a sale deed dated 9th November 1928. The suit was filed on the 8th of November 1929. On the 6th of February 1930, the defendants-vendees obtained a deed of gift in their favour which the present plaintiff also sought to preempt by a second suit. It has now been finally held that it was a transaction of gift and was not perceptible. On 20th December 1930, the Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim for preemption, holding that the second transaction was a sale and not a gift. But on 14th December 1931 the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the second transaction was one of gift and accordingly dismissed not only the plaintiff's claim to pre-empt the second transaction but also his claim to preempt the first sale deed. The finding that the second transaction was a gift has been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.2. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-25-1935
Reported in : 163Ind.Cas.566
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried 'before a Special Magistrate of Barakpore on charges under Section 19-A of the Arms Act as amended by-Bengal Act XXI of 1932 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They have all been convicted under those sections and the appellant Aswini Kumar Ghose has also been convicted under Section 19-A of the Arms Act as amended by Bengal Act XXI of 1932. Bimal Krishna Biswas has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and each of the other two appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Besides these appellants four other persons were put on trial. Out of these three, namely Kalidas, Ghose, Lakshman Chandra Adhikary and Panehanan Samanta pleaded guilty and were convicted on that plea and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. They hive been examined as witnesses for the prosecution. Kalidas, prosecution witness No. 37, Lakshman prosecution w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-18-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Mad171; (1936)70MLJ1
Cronish, J.1. The question raised in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant, who was defendant in the suit, was entitled to subrogation in respect of two mortgages discharged by him for the mortgagor.2. The appellant had been given a usufructuary mortgage of property, which was subject to three prior simple mortgages in consideration of an advance of Rs. 8000 made by him to the mortgagor, the appellant undertaking to pay off these prior mortgages. As a matter of fact he paid off the two first mortgages, but he did not pay off the third mortgage. The third mortgagee brought a suit for sale on the footing of his mortgage, and the appellant set up in this suit a claim to be substituted for the two prior mortgagees whose debt he had discharged. The lower appellate Court rejected this claim, holding that it was not sustainable in the face of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. It should be mentioned that the mortgages in question were antecedent in date to the amendment introdu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-01-1935
Reported in : (1935)37BOMLR955
Barlee, J.1. The appellants are the Shantiniketan Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., and Ramanlal Govindlal Shah. The respondents are the heirs of Patel Amichand Kuberdas and the Secretary of State for India in Council. The facts to which I shall have to refer in connection with the main issue in the suit are few and undisputed.2. The appellants are a co-operative society registered under Bombay Act VIII of 1925. The first appellant is the co-operative society and the second appellant is one of its members. In 1925 by the said Act the Bombay legislature made a provision for co-operative housing societies, and in 1927 the Government decided to acquire land in Ahmedabad for the Shantiniketan Housing Society, and a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was promulgated. Part of the land which it was proposed to acquire belonged to Patel Amichand Kuberdas, and he objected to the acquisition of his land on the ground inter alia that the acquisition was illegal. His object...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-19-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Cal57
Derbyshire, C. J.1. This matter comes to us by way of appeal from the Registrar of Trade Unions for Bengal. The appeal is brought under Section 11, Trade Unions Act of 1926. [Sub-sections 1 to 3 read as follows:]2. 'Any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a Trade Union or by the withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal (a) where the head office of the Trade Union is situated within the limits of a Presidency town or of Rangoon, to the High Court, or (b) where the head office is situated in any other area, to such Court, not inferior to the Court of an additional or assistant Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as the Local Government may appoint in this behalf for that area. (2) The appellate Court may dismiss the appeal, or pass an order directing the Registrar to register the union and to issue a certificate of registration under the provisions of Section 9 or setti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-22-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Cal316,165Ind.Cas.497
Cestello, J.1. In these Rules we are concerned with the trial of a number of persons who were tried before Mr. P.C. Ghose, Magistrate of the first class, at Alipore. In all forty six persons were tried before that Magistrate upon a charge under Section 120-13, I.P. C, read with Section 9, Opium Act, (Act 1 of 1878), Sections 13, 14-A and 19, Dangerous Drugs Act, (Act 2 of 1930), and Section 19(a) and (c), Arms. Act, (Act 2 of 1878.) The charge was that they were parties to a criminal conspiracy to export, import possess and sell opium, (that part had reference to Section 9, Opium Act), import into British India and export from British India and tranship dangerous drugs, i.e. opium and cocaine (Section 13, Dangerous Drugs Act) import and export interprovincially, transfer possess and sell manufactured goods, i.e. cocaine (that part had reference to Section 14(a), Dangerous Drugs Act), to hold and control a trade in dangerous drugs, i.e. opium and cocaine, obtained outside British India ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-12-1935
Reported in : [1935]3ITR295(Cal)
Biswas, for the AssesseeDr. Radha Binode Pal for the Commissioner.COSTELLO, J. - On the 5th of December, 1934, a Rule was issued by Mr. Justice LORT-WILLIAMS and Mr. Justice JACK in the matter of an application under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 at the instance of Jawala Prasad Chobey calling upon the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengal, to show cause why he should not draw up a statement of the case mentioned in the petition on which the application was based and refer that statement of the case to this Court under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act for its opinion on the questions of law referred to in the order made by this Court. Those questions of law were stated under three heads after the original questions given in the petition had been redrafted by Counsel on behalf of the petitioner at the suggestion of the Court. In their final shape the questions were as follows : (i) Whether, having regard to the fact that Section 34 of the Act requires 'particul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-15-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Mad483; 157Ind.Cas.181
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is defendant 4 in the mortgage suit brought by the appellant in O.S. Appeal No. 87 of 1933. The mortgage was executed by-one Appadurai Gramarti, the father of defendants 1-4, and by defendants 1-3, and Appadurai also executed it on be-behalf of defendant 4 who was then a minor. The mortgage comprised a plot of land which Appadurai's father, Tanikachala, had dedicated to a private temple built by Thanikachala on the land. The first three defendants were ex parte. But defendant 4 defended the suit. In his written statement he raised the plea (inter alia) that the particular plot having been dedicated to charity could not be bound by the mortgage. The learned Chief Justice who tried the case permitted the plaintiff-mortgagee to file an additional statement wherein the plaintiff pleaded that Appadurai and his sons had acquired title to the plot by adverse possession and that they were therefore competent to mortgage it. The learned trial Judge found that a title...
Tag this Judgment!