Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-05-1936
Reported in : (1936)71MLJ873
M. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. By this petition the Rajah of Vizianagaram applies that the High Court may, in the exercise of its powers under the Letters Patent and such other powers it possesses, make an order restraining the Court of Wards from sending his minor children to Great Britain and if necessary, appointing some suitable person as their guardian. The circumstances in which this application came to be made, will appear from our preliminary order dated the 7th May, 1936, but for the sake of easy reference I shall briefly recapitulate them. Under Section 15 of the Court of Wards Act, the Local Government made a declaration that the petitioner was a disqualified proprietor and directed the Court of Wards to assume Superintendence both of his person and property. The Rajah immediately filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, impeaching the validity of the order made by the Government and praying for a declaration that it is ultra vires and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1936
Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR690
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant in these eighteen consolidated appeals is the ruler of Limbdi State in Kathiawar. The respondents are the mulgametis and landholders in eighteen villages of the Khadol Barwala Taluka in Dhanduka in British India, each of the appeals relating to one of the villages. The appellant, as plaintiff in the suits, in substance asks for a declaration that he, and not the defendants, is entitled to be registered as talukdar under the Gujarat Talukdars' Act (Bom. VI of 1888), as amended by Act II of 1905.2. On April 23, 1928, the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad granted the appellant in each suit the declaration asked for. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by an order in each suit dated October 9, 1931, set aside the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suits to allow the appellant an opportunity of joining the Government as a party to the claim as regards an agreement dated August 12, 1922, and his absolute ownership of the villages in q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-23-1936
Reported in : 169Ind.Cas.948
Costello, J.1. This suit raises questions of very great public importance and the decision which I have to give not only affects the rights and the status of the actual parties to these proceedings bat may also have a bearing upon the status of persons who are in no way connected with these proceedings as there may be other persons in India who are in the same position as the petitioner as regards divorce and subsequent marriage. The legitimacy of children may even be affected.2. The points mised in this case are of such general importance that I thought' it right to ask the Advocate-General of Bengal to appear or be represented before me in order that in the public interest all aspects of the matter might be fully discussed: Mr. Westmacott and Mr. Clough have appeared and argued on behalf of the Advocate-General and I am very much indebted to them for the very full and able assistance which they have rendered to the Court.3. The suit is one for a declaration that the marriage which to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-1936
Reported in : AIR1936Bom363; (1936)38BOMLR632; 165Ind.Cas.672
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr, Justice Black-well. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants as the sureties upon an administration bond, and the learned Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue of limitation.2. The facts are not in dispute. On October 21, 1920, one Chunilal Motilal died intestate, leaving two minor sons, who are the plaintiffs. On July 14, 1921, leave was given to Nathalal Motilal to apply for letters of administration. On November 24, 1921, the said Nathalal Motilal, and the defendants, as sureties, entered into a bond, which is exhibit A, for payment to Pheroz Behramji Malabari, Registrar of this Court in its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, and William J. Howard, acting Assistant Prothonotary, their executors, administrators and assigns of the penal sum of Rs. 1,76,682, which was double the value at which the estate was sworn. The conditions of the bond which was in the usual form, were, first, that Nathalal Motilal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-1936
Reported in : AIR1936Mad835; 165Ind.Cas.860
ORDER1. These criminal revision cases arise out of conviction under Section 18 (1), Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 926, 929 and 930 of 1935 are in respect of the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Guntur dismissing the appeals against the order of conviction by Mr. Strathe, District Magistrate of Guntur; and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 927 and 928 of 1935 relate to convictions by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The petitioners were convicted of the offence of having distributed unauthorized news-sheets in Guntur and Madras respectively and were sentenced on conviction to simple imprisonment for six months. The points arising in these cases have been dealt with in one common argument and can be disposed of in one judgment.2. The petitioners in all these cases were members of a body known as the Labour Protection League; and as regards the Guntur prosecution, one of them is the president, another the secretary and the third the jo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-08-1936
Reported in : AIR1937All208
1. This is an appeal from an order filing an agreement of reference to arbitration. The applicant Thakur Shiva Mangal Singh got certain ornaments injured with the defendant company for Rs. 18,000 with a guarantee that if the articles be lost by burglary and house, breaking at any time within the period fixed, then the company shall pay or make good all such loss or damages not exceeding the sum of Rs. 18,000. There were a Large number of other conditions contained in numerous paragraphs printed overleaf among which there was a clause that if any question or difference arose between the insured or any claimant upon this policy and the company as to the meaning and effect of this policy or as to any claim by or any right or liability of either party by virtue thereof, the same shall be referred to arbitration and be decided by arbitrators mutually chosen or by an umpire chosen by them previously to commencing arbitration, and the award shall be binding and conclusive on the parties to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1936
Reported in : AIR1937Bom401; (1937)39BOMLR444
Wassoodew, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal, so far as a, statement thereof is necessary for the present purpose, are these. The appellants who were holders of certain talukdari estate in the District of Ahmedabad filed a suit in 1900 to obtain a declaration regarding their title to a share in that estate in a civil Court. That title was confirmed by the High Court on August 6, 1907. The provisions of the Gujarat Talukdars' Act (Bom. VI of 1888) regulated the procedure in regard to the partition of the estate, and the appellants, therefore, applied in 1916 to the Talukdari Settlement Officer for the separation of their share in the said estate. To that petition there were numerous parties, the persons interested in the estate being not less than 65. They were, therefore, impleaded before the said Officer for the purpose of effecting a partition. In course of time before the application was decided some of them died, but through inadvertence the names of their legal representat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-18-1936
Reported in : AIR1936Bom412; (1936)38BOMLR808; 165Ind.Cas.1001
Broomfield, J.1. In the suit from which these appeals arise the plaintiffs are the managers of a temple called Shri Mahableshwar of Gokarn. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are members of a committee called the Kumta Dharma-dav Committee and as such they hold and manage a fund called ' Dharma-dav Fund ', which is collected for the benefit of a number of religious and charitable institutions in the neighbourhood of Kumta. Part of this fund has been set apart for the benefit of the Shri Mahableshwar temple and some land has been purchased out of this part of the fund. The plaintiffs brought the suit alleging that the defendants are the trustees of the fund, and that they have been guilty of a breach of trust. The reliefs prayed for are possession of the land purchased out of the fund and recovery of the rest of the amount due to the temple after taking accounts of the fund from the beginning.2. The trial Court has made a preliminary decree awarding the plaintiffs possession of the land with mesne ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-06-1936
Reported in : [1936]4ITR397(All)
COLLISTER, J. - This is a case which has been stated by the Income Tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922). The assessee is the Chamber of Commerce at Hapur and the case relates to two assessment years, 1932-33 and 1933-34. The assessee is a company limited by guarantee which was registered in 1923 under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act.The objects for which the assessee was incorporated, as set forth in its Memorandum and Articles of Association, are as follows :-(1) To promote and protect the trade, commerce and manufactures of India, and in particular the trade, commerce and manufactures of Hapur and district Meerut.(2) To promote unity and friendliness amongst all merchants in general and dealers in grain in particular in respect of all subjects of common interest.(3) To establish just and equitable principles in trade and to form a code or codes of practice to simplify and facilitate transaction of business between merchants dealing in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1936
Reported in : (1936)70MLJ635
Cronish, J.1. Two points of law arising in the trial of John McIver for criminal breach of trust at the last Criminal Sessions have been reserved to us for decision under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent by the learned Chief Justice. They are (1) whether the plea of autrefois acquit was good in law, and (2) whether there could be a legal entrustment of the property having regard to the case put forward by the Crown. By ' case put forward by the Crown ', the learned Chief Justice has stated that he means the case alleged in the complaint.2. The learned Crown Prosecutor has taken an objection to our jurisdiction to entertain the reference. His objection proceeds as follows: - The High Court derives its jurisdiction to decide the question of law referred from the order of reference; the referring Judge is only competent to refer questions which he can decide; and the Judge is only competent to decide such questions as are available for his decision. Applying these propositions to the point...
Tag this Judgment!