Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad719; (1940)1MLJ547
Horwill, J.1. The appellant brought a suit on two promissory notes for amounts advanced to the Annadhana kattalai for the necessary performance of the duties imposed on the trust. The first defendant was the trustee of the kattalai and the second defendant was the receiver of the kattalai property, who has since been replaced by the executive officer of the temple. It appears from the plaint that the money was not advanced direct to the kattalai. The plaintiff, who had received a power of attorney from the trustee, was managing the kattalai on the first defendant's behalf, receiving income from the property, and making purchases; and the sum claimed is that admitted by the first defendant to be due to the plaintiff on account of provisions and other necessaries supplied to the kattalai in excess of the income. The defendants contended that some of the alleged items of expenditure were not true; but it was found that the plaintiff had properly accounted for the money mentioned in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1940Cal281
Narsing Rau, J.1. The petitioners executed a usufructuary mortgage of certain occupancy holdings in favour of the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties on 5th March 1923 by way of security for a loan of Rupees 1750, the stipulation being that the mortgagee should enjoy the usufruct in lieu of interest. The deed was registered on 6th March 1923. On 10th March 1939 they applied to the Munsiff of the second Court at Contai under Section 26G, Ben. Ten. Act, to be restored to possession of the holdings, more than fifteen years having elapsed since the registration of the mortgage. The Munsiff dismissed the application of 12th July 1939. The present rule is directed against this order. Sub-section (5) of Section 26G, under which the application was made, runs thus:Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or in any contract, the consideration (with all interest thereon) for a complete usufructuary mortgage or for another form of usufructuary mortgage deemed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1941Cal272
Ameer Ali, J.1. I shall consider my judgment: at any rate on one point, but I begin now, note with standing that my own notes are in a fragmentary state. The matter should have been made easier for me by the fact that was argued with much ability on the part of the plaintiff, who was able to have the services of Mr. Roy supported by counsel if less eminent no less efficient whom the remorseful relations, notwithstanding that they are supposed to be indigent, were able to brief. I was especially indebted to Mr. Hazra and Mr. Das for arguments on their behalf. But there is such a thing as embarrassment of abundance. This suit was filed on 6th March 1937. The significance of the date will hereafter appear. The suit is by a deity, who by his symbol Sridhar Jew, figures very largely in my list. The next friend of the deity in this case, whose name will be found at the bottom left-hand corner of the genealogical table included in the admitted brief, is Nirmal Krishna Mitter, whom I have seen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR640
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of Section 20 of the Indian limitation Act (IX of 1908) as amended by the Indian Limitation Amendment Act (I of 1927), Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined.2. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between October 17, 1929, and July 17, 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of S. 20, Limitation Act (9 of 1908) as amended by the Limitation Amendment Act (1 of 1927). Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between 17th October 1929, and 17th July 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve percent. per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admitted by the defendant and a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR697
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought from a decree of the High Court at Lahore dated January 31, 1936, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lyallpur, dated January 31, 1935, and dismissing the appellants suit. The subject-matter of the dispute is someof squares of land in the district of Lyallpur in the Punjab, which (as is now admitted) belonged to one Ishar Singh who died childless on October 6, 1905, leaving him surviving a widow Bishan Devi; also a brother's son Sundar Singh who died on January 10, 1922. On February 7, 1929, the widow purported to make a gift of one portion of the land to Sangat Singh (respondent No. 1) and of another portion to a certain Gurdwara (respondent No. 2). The present suit was brought on August 7, 1933, by the appellants, who are three of the four sons of Sundar Singh. The fourth son was made a defendant and is now respondent No. 3. The claim of the plaint is for a declaration that the gifts of land to Sangat Singh and to the Gurdwara have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad602; (1940)2MLJ95
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee company is a private company having been incorporated in British India in May 1933. The capital is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and all the shares have been issued. The shareholders and their holdings are as follows : (i) the firm of A, and F. Harvey, 3,998 shares; (ii) the Madura Mills Company, Limited, 1,000 shares and the Comorin Investment and Trading Company, Limited, 2 shares. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the assessee company as 'the Company', to the firm of A and F. Harvey as 'the firm' and to the Madura Mills Company, Limited, as the 'Madura Mills'. The firm consists of three partners, namely, Mr. A. Harvey, Mr. J.C. Harvey and the Tuticorin Company, Limited, the shareholders of which are mostly certain employees of the firm. Mr. A. Harvey and Mr. J.C. Harvey are brothers. The profits of the firm are divisible between the partners in the following proportions : Mr. A. Harvey 63/128; Mr. J.C. Har...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1940]8ITR307(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee company is a private company having been incorporated in British India in May 1933. The capital is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and all the shares have been issued. The shareholders and their holdings are as follows :-(i) The firm of A & F Harvey, 3,998 shares;(ii) The Madura Mills Company Limited, 1,000 shares and the Comorin Investment and Trading Company Limited, 2 shares. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the assessee company as 'the company', to the firm of A & F Harvey as 'the firm' and to the Madura Mills Company Limited as the 'Madura Mills'. The firm consists of three partners, namely, Mr. A. Harvey; Mr. J. C. Harvey and the Tuticorin Company Limited, the shareholders of which are mostly certain employees of the firm. Mr. A. Harvey and Mr. J. C. Harvey are brothers. The profits of the firm are divisible between the partners in the following proportions : Mr. A. Harvey 63/128; Mr. J. C. Harvey 63/128 and the Tuticorin C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All272
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench for decision is, whether the U.P. Regularization of Remissions Act (14 of 1938) is or is not intra vires the Legislature of the United Provinces. The reference arises under the following circumstances: A suit for arrears of theka money with respect to the years 1339 to 1341 Fasli (1932 to 1934 A.D.) was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the defendants-respondents under Section 132, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926). The plaintiffs claimed the arrears at the rate of the annual rent reserved by the lease. The defendants inter alia pleaded that remissions in rent were allowed by the local Government in the years in suit and that, in calculating the amount due to the plaintiffs, the remissions should be taken into account. The plaintiffs, while admitting that in pursuance of the directions issued by the local Government remissions in rent were granted to the tenants in the years in question, maintained that the orders as to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR767
Thankerton, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is as to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain the suit. The appeal is taken from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated February 2, 1938, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore, dated March 30, 1937 (which had dismissed the respondents' suit on the ground of want of jurisdiction), and directed the Subordinate Judge to restore the suit to the file and to dispose of it on the merits.2. The respondents are a firm of merchants, having their head office at Pan-ruti in the Province of Madras, and, in the course of their business, they import betel-nuts from Java into British India. The facts in the present suit, which was filed by the respondents on April 10, 1934, are not materially in dispute. The suit relates to two consignments of betel-nuts, imported by the respondents in December, 1932, from Java to Pondicherry by sea, and thereafter by rail to Panruti...
Tag this Judgment!