Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-18-1938
Reported in : (1939)1MLJ209
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. In Application No. 2162 of 1938 one A.M. Gopalakrishnan, an employee of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Ltd., prays for an order that directions should be issued to the Official Liquidators to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000 furnished by him to the above Bank as security for his post as the Chief Cashier in the Anderson Hall branch, in full and in priority to the claim of any creditor. In support of the application he has filed an affidavit stating that he was employed on the 9th March, 1938 and that his services were terminated due to the fact of the Bank being wound up. He submits that the security account was deposited for a specific purpose agreed upon between him and the Bank and that in the event of any loss caused to the Bank by his misconduct, the Bank might recoup themselves from out of the sum only such loss and nothing more and that on the termination of his services the amount should be returned to him. He contends that the Bank was trustee to him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-12-1938
Reported in : AIR1939All97
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the decree-holder against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad to the following effect:As the judgment-debtor has applied under the Encumbered Estates Act in Benares (vide order of Collector) execution cannot proceed and is shelved. Certificate sent shall be withdrawn.2. This first appeal which was originally filed as a civil revision came before a Bench which recommended a reference to a Pull Bench which has now been made. The ground of the reference was that there was a decree passed in a partition suit in regard to properties belonging to a joint Hindu family and the decree directed the payment of a certain amount by one of the coparceners to another coparcener, and the question which arose was whether the amount which was to be paid constituted a debt within the meaning of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, Act 25 of 1934. On 25th May 1922, there was an agreement between the members of a very wealthy joint Hind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1938
Reported in : AIR1938Mad785; (1938)2MLJ189
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is whether a person who has lent money on a promissory note can sue to recover the debt apart from the note when the note embodies the terms of the contract with the borrower but is inadmissible in evidence owing to a defect in the stamping. In England the right to sue on the original consideration is recognised, and the same principle has been applied by some Judges in India, but Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of the contract except the document itself, or secondary evidence where secondary evidence is admissible and other Judges have held that this section prohibits a suit on the original consideration. This Court, except in two cases to which I shall in due course refer, has held that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is a bar to a suit on the debt when the loan and the instrument are contemporaneous. Before turning to ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-10-1938
Reported in : AIR1938All625
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra of a sentence of death passed on Lal Singh Thakur, a resident of Gwalior State, under Section 396, I.P.C., for taking part in a dacoity in which murder was committed. It is not held by the lower Court that the murder was committed by the present appellant. The first report was made on 15th March 1935 at 5 A.M. in Thana Bah in Agra District stating that on the previous night at midnight there had been an armed dacoity at the house of Gopi Bania in Mauza Khilla. The actual person who made the report was one Kanhai Singh Thakur, and his' brother had been with the villagers outside the house who attempted to intervene and had been shot by some dacoit unknown. The first report was very brief. The witness P.W. 43, Sub-Inspector Daniells, states that he went to the place and inspected the house and found property lying about and the usual signs of a dacoity, and Bachan Singh had wounds in his leg and was sent to the Thomas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-08-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Mad120; (1939)2MLJ135
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide a matter referred under Rule 2 of the Rules applying to this Court in its appellate jurisdiction by Burn and Stodart, JJ., sitting as a Bench dealing with criminal cases. The matter involves the important question whether this Court has the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus as known to the English Common Law or whether its powers are confined in this respect to those conferred by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives authority to issue directions 'of the nature of a habeas corpus''. There are other questions involved in the reference and for their proper appreciation it is necessary to set out the course of events.2. The respondents are the directors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited, a company registered under the laws of the State of Travancore. A petition for the compulsory winding up of the company was recently granted by this Court and official liquidat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-05-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Bom31; (1938)40BOMLR1192
Broomfield J.1. The two principal points in this second appeal are : (1) whether the equity of redemption in the case of a usufructuary mortgage is tangible property so that it can be transferred by an unregistered deed where the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 100, and (2) whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which came into force on April 1, 1930, is to be regarded as retrospective.2. The facts so far as it is necessary to mention them are as follows :-The property in suit is a paddy field. In 1879 the owner Babaji Surve mortgaged it by a possessory mortgage to Gondhalekar, the ancestor of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In 1890 the property, that is to say the equity of redemption, was sold in execution of a money decree against the mortgagor and it was purchased by Mahadev Khare, the father of respondents Nos. 10 and 11. In 1902 Khare sold it to Laxmanrao More, the father of respondent No. 3, by an unregistered sale-deed, exhibit 84. The consideration for the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-06-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Bom129; (1939)41BOMLR98
Wassoodew, J.1. The seven accused-appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dharwar upon various charges relating to the embezzlement of funds of the Dharwar Bank, Limited, and fabrication of accounts and evidence. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were the directors of the bank, were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 193 and also 477A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code; accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 who along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 as partners in Joshi & Co., were conducting Shri Ram Cinema Company, were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 193 and also 477A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code; and accused No. 8, the manager of the bank, of the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 409 read with Section 193 and also 477A of the Code. Upon a complaint by the present general manager of the Dharwar Bank, Limited, this prosecution was commenced with the sanction of the board of director...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-30-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Mad21; (1938)2MLJ863
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted on three charges under Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, read with Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced on each charge to one year's rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. Section 7(1)(a) reads as follows:Whoever with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-17-1938
Reported in : (1938)40BOMLR787
Wright, J.1. These two consolidated appeals depend substantially on the same issues of fact and involve the same questions of law. They were brought by special leave of His Majesty in Council in order to obtain a decision on the true effect of Section 239 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which provides that persons who are accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. The question has been whether the correctness of the joinder which depends on the sameness of the transaction is to be determined by looking at the accusation or by looking at the result of the trial. Certain subsidiary questions have also been raised as affecting the validity of the trial and conviction. These are not matters which would justify special leave to appeal being granted upon the principles which this Board have adopted in guiding this discretion in criminal matters, and should not have been brought before this Board, but, as the ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-16-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Bom198; (1939)41BOMLR290
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) inter alia of two designs for printing textile goods. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants who are importers of Japanese printed goods into Bombay for an injunction restraining them from importing textile goods bearing an imitation of the plaintiffs' two designs, for delivery up of the goods bearing the designs or any fraudulent imitation thereof and for damages.2. In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had for the purpose of sale applied or caused to be applied to the goods the designs or a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof knowing that the designs or a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof had been applied to the goods without the license or consent of the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs having alleged that the defendants knowingly and fraudulently infringed their rights to the designs, admitted at the hearing of the suit before me, ...
Tag this Judgment!