Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom172; (1940)42BOMLR262
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Sen in second appeal No. 133 of 1935. The material facts can be shortly stated. The suit was instituted on behalf of the Jawhar State to recover a sum of Rs. 1,950 as the balance due for the price of certain jungle sold by the State to the defendant. The plaint was presented1 in Court signed by a Daftardar of the State. The defendant contended that the Daftardar had no authority to sue on behalf of the State and that contention was upheld by the trial Court which dismissed the suit on October 5, 1933. It seems that subsequent to that date at the request of the person appointed to carry on the administration of the State, which was communicated to the Governor-General in Council through the Political Agent and Resident at Baroda, the Central Government in the exercise of their power under Section 85 of the Civil Procedure Code appointed the Administrator of the Jawhar State to prosecute or defend on behalf of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom216; (1940)42BOMLR428
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against an order mad by Mr. Justice Norman sitting singly in an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Belgaum. The appellant before us and another had filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Gokak for accounts and redemption of a mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. It related to two lands, survey No. 32 and survey No. 29: It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ravji and his brother Bapuji, since deceased, had mortgaged the whole of survey No. 32 and survey No. 29, pot No. 3, to one Datto Ramchandra Kalkundri. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were heirs of the mortgagee. They had transferred their mortgage rights in 1925 to defendant No. 4. In darkhast No. 54 of 1922 brought in execution of a decree obtained by one Vinayak Joshi against Ravji survey Nos. 29/3 and 32/3 were sold as belonging to Ravji, and were purchased by defendant No. 5. Defendants Nos. 6 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad118; (1940)1MLJ32
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises important questions with regard to the stamping of plaints in suits for the partition of estates of joint Hindu families. The petitioner is the minor son of a Hindu father. Through his mother as next friend he has filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam for partition of the family properties and for possession of his one-fifth share therein. He has joined as defendants his father, his three brothers, and twenty-two other persons. The stranger defendants are made parties either as alienees of family properties or as creditors of the family. In his plaint the plaintiff avers that the family is one engaged merely in agriculture and that before the matters complained of, it had large cash resources. He alleges that his father has engaged in reckless speculation in land, in trade, and in litigation with the result that the cash resources have disappeared, the family properties have been sold or mortgaged and num...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom131; (1940)42BOMLR231
Blackwell, J.1. [After setting out facts, the judgment proceeded :] Section 476 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is as follows :-When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, ' Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after suchpreliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR199
Macmillan, J.1. This appeal relates to a tea garden in the district of Chittagong, known as the Kaicherra Tea Estate, which at one time belonged to the Kaiyacherra Tea Company, Limited. The estate was mortgaged to Messrs Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co. of Calcutta who in 1930 obtained an order for the compulsory winding-up of the Tea Company. Thereafter the estate was put up to auction by the liquidators and purchased by Messrs. Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co. Without obtaining any conveyance in their favour Messrs. Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co. on October 10, 1931, by an interchange of letters of offer and acceptance agreed to sell the estate to one S. N. Roy, who paid the first instalment of the price and entered into possession. No conveyance was ever executed in pursuance of this contract of sale, but the plaintiffs in the present suit, now the appellants, claim to have acquired at least in part the purchaser's rights under it. The estate has been the subject of a complicated series of trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad127; (1940)1MLJ235
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. On the 9th March, 1922, the first respondent obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada a money decree against the appellant, the appellant's uncle and a cousin, who were the members of an undivided family. The amount for which judgment was obtained was Rs. 3,735, but a mistake was made in drawing up the decree and the figure inserted was Rs.200. It was not until the 16th July, 1928, that the mistake was corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 6th December, 1933, the respondent caused the decree to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for execution and on the 5th March, 1934, he applied for attachment of certain immovable property. The appellant objected to the attachment on the ground that the property was his personal property and the decree had only made him liable to the extent of his interest in the family property. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ175
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the head of an ancient and well-known math, the Tiruvannamalai Math at Kunnakudi. As head of the math he is the trustee of a group of five temples, known as the Anjukovil Devasthanams, Kunnakudi. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has notified these temples under Chap. VI-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, with the object of taking the management of them out of the hands of the petitioner and placing it in the hands of an officer of its own choosing. The petitioner complains that in taking action under Chap.VI-A the Board has not acted bona fide, but in abuse of its powers, and asks the Court in certiorari proceedings to quash the orders of the Board which have resulted in the notification of the temples. A rule nisi has been issued and the Court has now to consider whether the rule should be made absolute.2. From time immemorial the, head of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1941Mad878
Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the head of an ancient and well-known math, the Tiruvannamalai Math at Kunnakudi. As head of the math he is the trustee of a group of five temples, known as the Anjukovil Devasthanams, Kunnakudi. The Madras Hindu Eeligious Endowments Board, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has notified these temples under Chap. 6-A, Madras Hindu Eeligious Endowments Act, 1926, with the object of taking the management of them out of the hands of the petitioner and placing it in the hands of an officer of its own choosing. The petitioner complains that in taking action under chap. 6-A, the Board has not acted bona fide, but in abuse of its powers, and asks the Court in certiorari proceedings to quash the orders of the Board which have resulted in the notification of the temples. A rule nisi has been issued and the Court has now to consider whether the rule should be made absolute.2. From time immemorial the head of the Tiruvannamalai math has been th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR414
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, asking the Court (a) to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, to forbear from exercising jurisdiction and passing orders in the assessment of the petitioner for the years 1937-38 and 1938-39, and (b) to direct the Income-tax Officer, Central, Section II, to forbear from exercising jurisdiction, passing orders and continuing assessment proceedings for the assessment of the petitioner for the years 1937-38, 1938-39 and 1939-40.2. The relevant facts, which give rise to the application, can be stated shortly. In respect of the year 1937-38 the applicant, who carries on business in Bombay, received a notice under Section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act directing him to make a return to the Income-tax Officer appointed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan, that is to say the Local Commissioner of Income-tax, and in respect of that year an ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1940Cal153
Narsing Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent, from a decision of Jack J., and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the conservancy rates imposed by the Commissioners of the Dacca Municipality upon certain holdings described in Schedules A, B and C to the plaint are ultra vires and illegal and for an injunction restraining the Commissioners from realizing the rates. The suit was instituted before the Munsif of the Third Court of Dacca who dismissed it. There was an appeal to the District Judge of Dacca who also dismissed the suit. Then there was an appeal to the High Court heard by Jack, J. who allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and this is now an appeal from his decision.2. The Dacca Municipality appears to have been originally constituted as a Municipality under the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, hereinafter referred to as the old Act. This Act was repealed in 1932 by the Bengal Municipal Act of 1932, hereinafter referred to as the new Act, which came...
Tag this Judgment!