Court : Chennai
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 : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1937Cal60
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the two petitioners before us who have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 6, Sub-section 1, el. (c), Bengal Food Adulteration Act, and each of them sentenced under Section 21 of the said Act to pay a fine of Rs. 150, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The charge against the petitioners is that they stored for sale adulterated ghee in a shop situate in Katwa bazar within the Municipal limits of Katwa. The finding is that petitioner 2, Dinanath Bhakat, is the owner of the said shop and petitioner 1, Manindra Nath Banerjee, is his shop assistant. The facts which have been established are that on 14th September 1935 Jotish Chandra Dutt, the complainant, who is the Sanitary Inspector of the Katwa Municipality accompanied by some members of the Food Adulteration Committee of the said Municipality took samples of ghee and mustard oil from five shops of the Katwa bazar. No sample was taken from the shop of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All129
Thom, J.1. The following question has been referred for decision : 'Is the pay of an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department liable to attachment in execution of an order for maintenance and alimony passed by a civil Court?'2. The question has arisen in connexion with an application made by one Norbert Edwin Nugent, an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department, who was the respondent in Matrimonial suit No. 3 of 1934. The petitioner in that suit was awarded the sum of Rs. 150 per mensem, and on 15th February 1985, this Court passed an ex parte order directing the Controller of Military Accounts, Northern Command, Rawalpindi, to deduct a sum of Rs. 150 per mensem from the pay of the respondent and to remit the same to this Court to be paid to the petitioner. The respondent thereupon presented an application to this Court praying that the order of 15th February attaching his salary be withdrawn. The learned Government Advocate, who appeared for the applicant, contende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR1156
Engineer, J.1. The claim in the suit is an extraordinary one. The plaintiffs pray for the dissolution and accounts of what they call a family partnership business, which, according to them, was dissolved on October 1, 1933. The parties to the suit are Irani Zoroastrians. The basis on which their claim is made is set out in para. 6 of the plaint as follows :-An ancient invariable and well known custom prevails among Iranis who have settled down in Bombay that they carry on family business in partnership and every male member of the family joins such family business and acquires an equal share in the profits and losses as well as the assets of the firm with the other members of the family who have previously joined such family business.2. The family partnership business mentioned in the plaint is alleged to have started in 1892, when Behram, the eldest brother of plaintiff No. 1, having come to Bombay, started a tea shop. In 1897 the second brother Merwan, who was the original defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom6
Engineer, J.1. The claim in the suit is an extraordinary one. The plaintiffs pray for the dissolution and accounts of what they call a family partnership business, which, according to them, was dissolved on 1st October 1933. The parties to the suit are Irani Zoroastrians. The basis on which their claim is made is set out in para. 6 of the plaint as follows:2. An ancient Invariable and well-known custom prevails among Iranis who have settled down in Bombay that they carry on family business in partnership and every male member of the family joins such family business and acquires an equal share in the profits and losses as well as the assets of the firm with the other members of the family who have previously joined such family business.3. The family partnership business mentioned in the plaint is alleged to have started in 1892, when Behram, the eldest brother of plaintiff 1, having come to Bombay, started a tea-shop. In 1897 the second brother Merwan, who was the original defendant 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR363
George Rankin, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was. brought in forma pauperis on September 18, 1922, by the three sons of one Kashinath against no fewer than seventy-eight defendants. The plaint is a long and complicated document of sixty-nine paragraphs and the general, outline of its contents is that Kashinath, the father and karta of a Mitakshara family, had embarked upon a career of vice and extravagance, in the course of which he had parted with a number of the family properties and had lost other properties by sales in execution of decrees. The purpose of the plaint was to recover various properties from the persons to whom they had been thus alienated, upon the footing that the alienations were not made for family necessity, and if made for Kashinath's antecedent debt, were not binding against his sons by reason that they were made for purposes, which the Hindu law regards as immoral. In respect that all the transactions impugned were brought under the allegation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom148; (1937)39BOMLR1257
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants are the owners of properties in the Kalupur ward of the city of Ahmedabad. They brought this suit, which has been dismissed by the District Judge of Ahmedabad, for a declaration that certain notifications under the Land Acquisition Act issued by Government at the request of the Municipality are ultra vires and illegal and for an injunction restraining the defendants, the Secretary of State for India and the Municipality, from going on with the acquisition proceedings. The notifications in question relate to a scheme called the Kalupur Relief Road Scheme for the construction of a new arterial road through the city from the Fort of Bhadra to the neighbourhood of the Railway Station. Proposals in this connection, originally a part of a larger improvement scheme, had been under consideration for some years before 1923. In that year Mr. Mirams, the then Consulting Surveyor to Government, at the request of the Committee of Management, then temporari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom10; (1937)39BOMLR820
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of the taxation of a bill of costs, claimed by an advocate practising in the mufassal in respect of legal services rendered in connection with a petition for the compulsory winding up of a registered company, presented under Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act. It is admitted that the advocate is entitled to recover from his own client the fees that are claimed in the bill of costs : but it is said that certain items cannot be claimed as against other parties.2. Rule 767 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay (O.S.), 1936 edn., provides that attorneys and pleaders are entitled to charge and to be allowed the fees set forth in the second schedule to the said rules (at p. 398). The rule is, however, subject to two provisions : the said fees shall be allowed (1) so far as the same are applicable and (2) unless the Court shall otherwise specially direct. (The rule was amended by a notification in the Bombay Government Gazette, dated February 20, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR765
Russell, J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax for the United and Central Provinces appeals from a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, on a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). The respondent taxpayer did not appear on the hearing of the appeal.2. The case relates to an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 23(4) of the Act, subsequently to an alleged failure by the taxpayer to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 22(4) of the Act. It will be convenient before stating the facts of the case to set out the provisions of the Act (as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1930, and the Indian Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1930), which are relevant, and under which the various steps in the case, leading up to the reference, were taken. They are the following :-22. (1)...(2) In the case of any person other than a company whose total income is, in the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1937)2MLJ251
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal has been brought against an order made by the lower Court, refusing execution against the respondent. The decree that was sought to be executed was one passed in O.S. No. 7 of 1922 inter alia against the respondent's father, who was the 5th defendant in the suit. Into the chequered history of that suit, it is unnecessary to enter; it is sufficient to state for the present purpose, that the suit itself was commenced in 1919 (it was originally numbered as O.S. No. 96 of 1919), that a decree for possession was passed against the 5th defendant in May, 1933, that in execution of that decree the plaintiff obtained possession of the lands in October of the same year and that by a further judgment delivered on 3rd April, 1935, mesne profits were awarded against the fifth defendant, who subsequently died in the following June. (To avoid confusion, it may be stated that the formal decree drawn up in respect of mesne profits bears a later date, namely, 22nd July...
Tag this Judgment!