Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-16-1946
Reported in : AIR1948Mad51
ORDERClark, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidator under Section 235 of the Act. Respondent 1 was the Managing Director of the Company and respondents 2 to 10 were directors. Respondent 11 was the company's auditor and respondent 12 its head-clerk. Respondent 1 is not appearing in these proceedings. He was adjudicated insolvent and respondent 13, who was the Official Receiver of his estate, was joined, but I am told that the insolvency has been annulled and accordingly respondent 13 has no further interest in the matter.2. The liquidator claims that large amounts are recoverable from the respondents for misfeasances consisting for the most part in their having granted loans contrary to the byelaws of the company. It is alleged that these loans, which are now, I understand, irrecoverable, were granted at the absolute discretion of respondent 1 without any previous sanction by the Board and, accordingly, that respondent 1 is primarily liable for these losses. It is claimed by the liqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-21-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Bom217; (1946)48BOMLR828
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated September 17, 1945.2. In the action the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 in this Court, sought a declaration and consequential relief with the object of establishing that certain alleged liens claimed by and in favour of the Asian Assurance Company, Ltd., (defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to this appeal) upon 26,000 shares in that company do not attach to the shares. The Official Assignee (defendant No. 5 and the appellant in this Court) filed a counter-claim for redemption of the shares claiming that the equity of redemption was vested in him as trustee of the property of Mr. Meyer Nissim who was adjudicated an insolvent on July 16, 1940. In the Court below, the plaintiff was successful in his claim, and the learned Judge granted him certain relief against which there is no appeal, but the Official Assignee's counter-claim was dismissed with costs, and it is against that dismissal that this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-30-1946
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR443
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Court of India, dated May 8, 1942, by which the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated February 27, 1941, dismissing appeals by the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, IV Class, Sialkot, dated July 22, 1940, 'were set aside and the case sent back to the High Court with a direction for the framing of proper issues and the remittal of the case to the trial Court for further trial and decision.2. The only question in this appeal is whether, and, if so, to what extent, Section 5 of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act X of 1938, is rendered invalid by Section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab Act of 1938, which may be conveniently referred to as the impugned Act, by Section 5 purported to insert a new Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-14-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Bom310; (1947)49BOMLR6
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision of Mr. Ahmed I. Rahimtoola, Presidency Magistrate of the Sixth Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, who convicted the applicant under Sections 32 and 34 of the Bombay Medical Practitioners' Act, 1938, and inflicted upon him a line of Rs. 25. The question involved is of considerable Importance, since we are informed that it may affect the position of a number of persons practising medicine in this Province.2. Part III of the Bombay Medical Practitioners' Act in which both Sections 32 and 34 appear came into operation on November 1, 1944. Section 34 provides :Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of Section 32 shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 100 for the first offence and to RS. 500 for every subsequent offence after his conviction for such first offence.And Section 32 is as follows:-No person other than (i) a practitioner registered under Part II of this A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-16-1946
Reported in : AIR1946Mad437; (1946)1MLJ373
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond executed on 30th March, 1937, by one Y.A. RM. Veerappa Chetti in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.2. One Y.A.A.R. Veerappa Chetti (who will be referred to as the deceased Veerappa Chetti) died without issue on the 12th March, 1937. Y.A. RM. Veerappa Chetti who was a near pangali of the deceased Veerappa Chetti instituted a suit for recovery of the properties pertaining to the estate of the deceased Veerappa from the defendant, appellant herein, who claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased Veerappa. The suit was filed soon after the death of the deceased Veerappa, but as the claimant Veerappa did not have sufficient funds for the conduct of the litigation he sought to assistance of the respondent who agreed to advance Rs. 10,000 in the first instance and further sums later on if required and in pursuance of that agreement the claimant Veerappa executed the suit mortgage Ex. P-I in favour of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Jan-30-1946
Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Court of India, dated 8th May 1942 by which the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 27th February 1941, dismissing appeals by the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 respectively from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Sialkot, dated 22nd July 1940 were set aside and the case sent back to the High Court with a direction for the framing of proper issues and the remittal of the case to the trial Court for further trial and decision. The only question in this appeal is whether, and, if so, to what extent, S. 5, Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act 10 [X] of 1938 is rendered invalid by S. 298, Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab Act of 1938, which may be conveniently referred to as the impugned Act, by S. 5 purported to insert a new S. 13A in the Punjab Alienation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-16-1946
Reported in : (1947)1MLJ234
Clark, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidator under Section 235 of the Act The first respondent was the Managing Director of the Company and the 2nd tc 10th respondents were Directors. The 11th respondent was the Company's auditor and the 12th respondent its head clerk. The first respondent is not appearing in these proceedings He was adjudicated insolvent and the 13th respondent who was the Official Receiver of his estate, was joined, but I am told that the insolvency has been annulled and accordingly the 13th respondent has no further interest in the matter.2. The liquidator claims that large amounts are recoverable from the respondents for misfeasances consisting for the most part in their having granted loans contrary to the bye-laws of the Company. It is alleged that these loans, which are now I understand, irrecoverable, were granted at the absolute discretion of the first respondent without any previous sanction by the Board and, accordingly that the first respondent is prima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-22-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Bom272; (1946)48BOMLR864
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. I have read the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I am in entire agreement with it and have nothing to add.Chagla, J.2. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden. The suit was filed by a Muslim woman against her Zoroastrian husband for dissolution of marriage. The parties were married in 1927 in Iran according to the Zoroastrian law. In the plaint as originally filed the only ground on which a decree for dissolution of marriage was sought was desertion of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaint was subsequently amended and a further ground was alleged, namely, that the plaintiff had ceased to be a Zoroastrian and had become a Muslim and that the defendant had declined to become a Muslim and was still continuing to be a Zoroastrian. It was therefore submitted that the plaintiff's marriage with the defendant was dissolved and a declaration was sought to that effect. The suit proceeded ex parie before Mr. Justice Blagd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-28-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Cal49
Gentle, J.1. The India Electric Works Ltd., applied under Section 14, Trade Marks Act, 1940 to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of the word 'India' as their trade mark of an electric fan. The Registrar refused the application on 26-9-1944. Pursuant to Section 76(1) of the Act the company presented an appeal to this Court against the Registrar's refusal. It was heard by McNair J. and by whom it was dismissed on 8-1-1945. The company now prefers this appeal against the learned Judge's dismissal. The Registrar of Trade Marks is the respondent. In form and substance it is an appeal from a single Judge to a Division Bench of this Court which, for convenience, I will call an inter-court appeal. Mr. S.B. Sinha, on behalf of the Registrar, raised a preliminary objection to the competency of the appeal on the grounds that an appeal to the High Court under Section 76(1) against the Registrar's refusal to register a trademark is final, and no further appeal, therefore, lies and, in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-14-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Cal1
Chakravartti, J.1. This rule was issued by Henderson J., sitting singly, who directed it to be heard by a Division Bench. It came up for hearing before a Division Bench, constituted of Khundkar and Biswas JJ., who thought that in view of the importance of the question involved, it ought to be heard by a Special Bench. Accordingly, on their requisition, the present Special Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice under the provisions of Chap. 2, Rule 1, proviso (ii), Appellate Side Rules. Since the case involves a question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, which concerns the Provincial Government, notice was directed to be given to the Advocate-General of Bengal under Order 27A, Rules 1 and 4, Civil P.C., and the Advocate-General appeared before us by Mr. Lahiri.2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts which have been stated in sufficient detail in the order recorded by the Division Bench. In substance, the position is that a decree, passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!