Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal411
Ghose and Stephen, JJ.1. The appellants in the present case have been convicted on charges under Section 482 and Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, as amended by the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889, of using a false trade-mark, and selling goods marked with a counterfeit trade-mark, and under Section 6 of the Merchandise Marks Act of applying a false trade description to goods, and they are now appealing against These convictions. The main facts in the case are simple and are undisputed.2. Since December, 1900 the opposite party have been selling fish-hooks, which they have imported from Europe, in packets bearing labels on which appears a design of two fish crossed, with their heads and tails bent up. These fish-hooks have been generally known in Calcutta as 'mash marka' (fish mark) and have commanded a large sale. The boxes, labels and designs have been made exhibits, but we need only notice the design of two fishes which for present purposes may be conveniently referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR491
Davey, J.1. The original plaintiff Auseri Lal was the head of a joint Hindoo family. He is now deceased, and the present appellants, as the surviving members of the family, have been substituted for him on the record. Auseri Lal on behalf of the family, formerly carried on the business of a banker and money-lender in the District of Sitapur in Oudh And in the course of his business he had, previously to the transactions which are the subject of this appeal, lent money to the respondent, who was and is the Talukdar of Mallanpur in the same District.2. In the year 1886 the respondent, being then largely involved in debt, was, on his own application, declared by the Chief Commissioner of Oudh a disqualified proprietor under the provisions of the Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1876, and his property was placed under the charge of the Court of Wards on the 12th August in that year. The respondent's property remained under such charge until some time in the month of July 1898, when it was released t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR522
Scott, J.1. This is a suit which was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiff, who is a boy of six years of age, by a man named Shamji Muljee as next friend. It appears that after the institution of the suit Shamji Muljee disappeared from Bombay, and thereafter a woman named Radhabai applied to the Court for an order under g. 447 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of a new next friend. The application was opposed by the first and second defendants, who were two of the executors of the father of the boy, on the ground that under the father's will a woman named Panbai had been appointed guardian of the person of the minor and that, therefore, under Section 440 of the Code the suit was a suit which could not be instituted except with the leave of the Court, which had not been obtained. That point was not decided by the learned Judge but by consent an order was made that Radhabai should be appointed next friend, she undertaking through her counsel to be responsible for all costs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR644
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is an application to us under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. It is objected by the plaintiff that his suit was wrongly dismissed.3. The suit was based on a Khata, and it seems to have been contended before the Court that the Khata was a promissory note.4. We do not think that it is a promissory note within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but subject to the conditions that we will next mention, it does appear to us that it may be a promise within Section 25, Clause (iii) of the Contract Act.5. The conditions necessary to make it a promise within that section is that it should be made in writing; be signed by the persons to be charged therewith; and be a promise to pay wholly or in part a debt, of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law of the limitation of suits.6. It is said that the signatory of this Khata is not the original debtor, but is his son and heir.7. For the defendant it is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1907)ILR34Cal150
Davey, J.1. This case comes before their Lordships on appeal and cross-appeal. The questions between the parties arose in taking the accounts between mortgagor and mortgagee. The appellant in the principal appeal is the widow and representative of Raja Rameswar Pershad Narayan Singh, the mortgagor and original defendant. The mortgagees, who were plaintiffs in the suit, were the respondents to the principal appeal, and the appellants in the cross-appeal.2. The object of the suit was to enforce payment by sale of the mortgaged properties, of sums of money owing on two mortgage bonds dated respectively the 19th June 1888 and the 15th June 1891. By the earlier bond the principal sum secured was Rs. 4,35,000 with interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem, equivalent to 10 1/2 per cent. per annum, and by the first, condition of the bond it was agreed that the interest should be paid every six months, and in case of default the mortgagee should pay interest on interest, at the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR304
Davey, J.1. This case comes before their lordships on appeal and cross-appeal. The questions between the parties arose in taking the accounts between mortgagor and mortgagee. The appellant in the principal appeal is the widow and representative of Raja Rameswar Pershad Narayan Singh, the mortgagor and original defendant. The mortgagees, who were plaintiffs in the suit, were the respondents to the principal appeal and the appellants in the cross-appeal.2. The object of the suit was to enforce payment, by sale of the mortgaged properties, of sums of money owing on two mortgage bonds, dated respectively the 19th June 1888 and the 15th June 1901. By the earlier bond the principal sum secured was Rs. 4,35,000, with interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem, equivalent to 101/2 per cent, per annum and by the first condition of the bond it was agreed that the interest should be paid every six months and in case of default the mortgagee should pay interest on interest, at the rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : IIIInd.Cas.484
Lal Chand, J.1. The facts are given in full in the order referring the case to a Division Bench for decision. The suit is for custody of wife, and, when instituted on 26th October 1005, was valued at Rs, 510 for the purposes of jurisdiction under the rules then in force. It was dismissed under Section 97, Civil Procedure Code, on 6th December 1905, and was re-admitted on 4th -January 1906. On 19th January 1900 the plain, was returned for amending the names of certain defendants, and the amended plaint was re-filed on 22nd January 1906, valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 520.2. Meanwhile the rule relating to valuation of such suits had been superseded and a new rule fixing the valuation of such suits at Rs. 1,000 for purposes of jurisdiction was issued with the sanction of the Local Government on 4th December 1905.3. The question raised is, whether under the circumstances, a further appeal is admissible in the case as of right under Section 40, Punjab Courts Act. We fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR789
Russell, Acting C.J.1. The accused in this case one Narayan Raghunath Patki, an Entry clerk in the General Post Office, Bombay, was charged before Russell J. and a common jury that he being an officer of the Post Office, viz. a clerk in the Inland Registration Department, committed theft in respect of a registered letter 477, containing currency notes of the value of Rs. 80 and four Goa lottery tickets, which was in the course of transmission from Ahmedabad to Goa and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 52 of Act VI of 1898 and was found guilty and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment.2. On the 16th October 1906, the Acting Advocate General Mr. Lowndes certified that a certain document marked as Ex. N and purporting to be the written record of a statement made by one Shankar, a witness for the prosecution in the case and taken down by one Narayanrao, a Police Officer, was wrongly so admitted and there was accordingly an error in the decision of a point of law...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All685
Richards, J.1. In this case one Ganga Prasad applies for the revision of the conviction under Section 500 of the Penal Code and a sentence of fine and imprisonment. It appears that one Birbal was being tried for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Ganga Prasad was called as a witness for the defence, and he thereupon made some remarks of a defamatory nature concerning one Banke Lal. Banke Lal then instituted the present prosecution against Ganga Prasad under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and the prosecution resulted, as already stated, in the conviction of Ganga Prasad. It has been contended on behalf of Banke Lal that the words spoken by Ganga Prasad were so irrelevant and foreign to the charge against Birbal that we ought to hold that the words were not spoken by Ganga Prasad in his capacity as a witness at all, and furthermore that some of the words spoken were spoken by Ganga Prasad after he had left the witness box. As to this last allegation it is by no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR967
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner, A.M. Jeewanjee, for a revision of the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, convicting him of the offence under Sub-section 1 of Section 107 of the Indian Emigration Act of 1883, as amended by Act No. X of 1902. Under that provision, 'whoever without having first obtained the permission of the Local Government referred to in Section 107, Sub-section 1, enters or attempts to enter into an agreement purporting to bind any Native of India to depart by sea out of India for any of the purposes specified in the Sub-section ... shall, on conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 250 for each Native of India in respect of whom the offence is committed.'2. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has held that the petitioner Jeewanjee entered into such an agreement (which i Ex. T in the case) with one Shaik Ismail Shaik Jamal, on the 23rd of January 1907, without having first ...
Tag this Judgment!