Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad316
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner complained to the Magistrate that, in consequence of her having widened a path by which her cattle were taken to pasture, K. Sankara Bhatta, I). M. Sankara Narayana Bhatta, Shambu alias Muttu Bhatta, and Sanku came to her verandah, inquired why she had widened the path, and abused her for it; that Sankara Bhatta pushed her on the neck, and, taking a switch of Maderi, struck her twice with it on the back; and that, fearing the other accused would also strike her, she entered the house. She added that the marks left by the blows were still visible.2. She was examined on her complaint; and it is recorded that she repeated her charge against Sankara Bhatta, that she admitted the other persons accused had not assaulted her, but explained that she included them in the complaint because they had stood by and abused her while Sankara was striking her.3. The Magistrate made a note that there were marks of blows on the complainant's back.4. It will b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal92
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case certain immoveable property was sold by the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a decree of this Court for Rs. 5,000. It was sold subject to two mortgages, securing repayment with interest of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 250 respectively.2. The Board of Revenue have referred to us the question whether the stamp on the sale certificate should be for Rs. 5,000, the purchase-money, or for Rs. 12,250, being the amount of the purchase-money plus the sum secured by the mortgages.3. The Collector and the Board of Revenue consider that the stamp should be for Rs. 12,250, and we are referred to two Full Bench authorities, one of the Bombay High Court Sha Nagindas Jeychand v. Halalkore Nathwa Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 and the other of the Madras High Court-Reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act I.L.R. 5 Mad. 18, which appeared to be in conflict.4. The Bombay Court decided that where a certificate of sale expressly stated that the sale was made subject to the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal166
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Whatever doubts may have arisen upon the subject of this reference in consequence of recent legislation, it is at least satisfactory that we are all now agreed upon one very material point, namely, that at the time of the passing of the Indian Carriers Act in 1865, the English law relating to common carriers was in force in this country. My brother WILSON and myself, when we referred this case, had some doubt about that point, but, so far as I am concerned, I am glad to say that my doubts have been entirely removed.2. It is obvious that the Carriers Act itself assumes two things: first, that there were a class of persons here at that time, who were recognized as common carriers; and, secondly, that there was some special law, which regulated the duties and responsibilities of those persons. It is difficult to imagine what that law could have been, unless it were the English common law; and it seems only reasonable to suppose that, as common carriers were introduce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom1
Scott, J.1. [Scott, J.-Even supposing the proof of malice to be necessary, would it not Be enough for our procedure to state facts from which malice might be inferred. Would it be necessary to aver malice. Here the plaintiff had paid the debt, and yet was arrested.]2. Malice could not necessarily be inferred from such facts. A ~ mistake might have occurred, and, if so, here is no action. Malice need not be averred in words, but facts must be stated from which there can only be one inference. Otherwise malice must be expressly alleged. The Court will not infer it from the mere fact of arrest-Tebbutt v. Holt 1 Cr. & Kirw. 280, Moore v. Gardner 16 M.& W. 595 Medina v. Grove 10 Q.B. 152 Churchill v. Stggers 3 Ell. & Bl. 937 Phillips v. Naylor 4 H. & N. 565 Brasyer v. Maclean L.R. 6 P.C. 405 Huffer v. Allen L.R. 2 Ex. 15. These cases show that the mere fact of arrest after payment is not enough. The payment was not made to the first defendant himself, and the plaint does not allege that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom40
West, J.1. This is an application for transfer from the First Class Magistrate's Court at Karmala in the Sholapur-Bijapur District to the Court of one of the Presidency Magistrates of a complaint lodged by the wife of the petitioner against him for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner it appears that he is a resident of Bombay, having lived here for upwards of ten years with his wife the opponent. He allowed her to go to her parents at Karmala in 1882 and she has not since returned to Bombay.3. A rule nisi was granted by this Court calling upon the Opponent (the wife) to show cause why the proceedings in the matter before the First Class Magistrate at Karmala should not be quashed as having been held without jurisdiction, or, if jurisdiction were found to exist, why the inquiry should not be transferred to the Presidency Magistrate's Court at Bombay. The, rule has been argued at great length by the pleaders of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR11Cal106
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the two first charges are not sufficiently explicit, and that they should have contained such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as would have been sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he was charged.2. The foundation of both charges lay in the fact that the accused was alleged to have been a member of an unlawful assembly. 'An unlawful assembly' is defined by Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, and the alleged common object of the assembly ought to have been set out in the charges. An accused person is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy the exact value of the charge brought against him. Unless he has this knowledge he must be seriously prejudiced in his defence. This is true in all cases, but it is more especially true in cases where it is sought to implicate an accused person for acts not committed by himself, but by others with whom he was in company.3. The Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom373
Scott, J.1. This case is of great importance, not only to the parties oil account of the magnitude of the sums claimed (eleven lakhs), but also to the whole community on account of the question to be decided -to wit, the extent of the liability of directors of limited companies for the result of negligent performance of their duties. The plaintiffs are the liquidators of the New Fleming Spinning and Weaving Company, which commenced its existence on the 31st of July 1878, and stopped payment on the 26th December in the same year. The defendants are Kessowji Naik and Gellabhoy Puddumsey, directors of the company; Mr. Turner, the official assignee of Nufsey Kessowji, an insolvent director; and the sons of Sakerchand Nagendas, a deceased director, Mr. K. N. Cama was also made a defendant director; but on his death, in the course of the case, the Court, at the request of the plaintiffs, under Section 302 of the Civil Procedure Code caused an entry of the death to be made on the record, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom358
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 100 paid to defendant, as a deposit, on account of the value of the dividends on 50 shares in the original capital of the Empress Spinning and Weaving Company, alleged to have been purchased by plaintiff for the period from the 1st June, 1880, to the 31st December, 1881. The defendant was the owner of the shares, and the alleged purchase was at the rate of Rs. 37 for each dividend. It is stated in the plaint that, when making the purchase on the 21st January, 1882, the plaintiff was under the impression that a dividend would be declared after that date; whereas it had already been declared on the 17th January, 1882.2. From the evidence, it appears that the dividend declared was at the rate of Rs. 25 for each share.3. The plaintiff asked that the deposit should be returned to him with damages, amounting to Rs. 6, for the wrongful detention of the money, on the ground that the contract of purchase must (on account of his ignorance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom333
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is an application by two persons, alleging themselves to be European British subjects, residing at Chadarghat, within the dominions of the Nizam, and asking that the criminal proceedings, which have been commenced against them for libel in the Cantonment Magistrate's Court at Secunderabad, should be removed to this Court under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882) as emended by Act III of 1884. To decide this question, it becomes necessary to ascertain with precision the jurisdiction of the Courts established by the Governor-General in Council in the Niazm's dominions, as well as the jurisdiction exercised by this High Court over those Courts.2. First, I will refer to the Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, XI of 1872, The object of that Act, as shown by the preamble, was to remove doubts which ,had arisen as to how far the exercise of power and jurisdiction by the Governor-General beyond the limits of British India, and the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR12Cal706
Wilson, J.1. The main question we have to answer upon this reference is, whether a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, celebrated in Calcutta in the year 1877, is liable to be declared null and void, under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground that the parties are within the prohibited degrees, both parties being domiciled in British India and resident in Calcutta, and both being Roman Catholics. It is not found whether either of the parties to this marriage is the descendant of English ancestors, or of European settlers in this country other than English, or of native converts to Christianity, or of mixed race; their names suggest a Portuguese origin. We are bound to presume every matter of fact in favour of the validity of a marriage, and therefore if there be rules as to the prohibited degrees which would invalidate a marriage between persons connected as these were, 'and if those rules be applicable to any one class of Christians, but not to all Chr...
Tag this Judgment!