Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1942Cal429
1. The questions involved in this appeal relate to the newly enacted Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, inserted by the Bengal Council Act 18 of 1940 (The Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1940), which came into force on 9th January 1914. The decree in question is for arrears of rent due in respect of a patni tenure held under tauzi No. 2409 of the Midnapur Collectorate. The entire patni was sold away by the defendant patnidars in 1938 (1344-45 B.S.) in fractional portions. The suit for the arrears of rent due for the period from 1342 B.S. to Falgoon 1345 B.S. was instituted by the decree-holders against the present defendants on 26th March 1939. In this suit the transferees of the patni were not made parties. The tauzi was sold away for arrears of revenue on 24th June 1939. In the rent suit the defendants inter alia took the plea, that as the patni has been sold away by them they were no longer liable for the arrears. This defence was overruled and the suit was decreed on 14th May 1940. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom1; (1942)44BOMLR830
Broomfield J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings which raises an interesting point of limitation.2. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants in a suit for sale on a mortgage for Rs. 54,000 and odd. The suit was filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Akola. The preliminary decree was made on September 30, 1926, and the final decree on July 2, 1927. As the mortgaged property was in the jurisdiction of the First Class Subordinate Judge of East Khandesh, the respondent applied in October, 1927, for transfer of the decree to that Court. An order of transfer was made on December 22, 1927, and the documents required by Order XXI, Rule (5, i.e. a copy of the decree and certificate of non-satisfaction, were sent to the Court at Jalgaon on September 3, 1928. A darkhast was filed to recover the amount of the decree by sale of the property, but there were no bidders and on that ground the darkhast was disposed of on March 22, 1933.3. On May 12, 1934, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1942Bom302; (1942)44BOMLR703
Chagla. J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to enforce an indemnity. It seems that in the year 1934 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay for the lease of a plot of land bearing No. 226A of the Dadar Matunga Estate for a term of 999 years. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff was put in possession of that plot of land. At the request of the defendant the plaintiff agreed to transfer the benefit of the agreement for lease with the Municipal Corporation to the defendant. Thereupon the defendant entered into possession of the plot of land and commenced to erect a building thereon. The materials for the construction of the building were supplied by one Keshavdas Mohandas, and the amount therefor exceeded Rs. 5,000. Keshavdas Mohandas made pressing demands upon the defendant for the payment of that amount, and at the request of the defendant the plaintiff mortgaged the property to Keshavdas Mohandas by depositing the title deed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1943Mad74; (1942)2MLJ120
1. The question, raised in. this appeal is whether there can be a valid pledge of shares by the deposit of the share certificate when it is not accompanied by an instrument of transfer. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat to recover what was due on a promissory note executed by one Subramania Pattar in favour of one Ramakrishna Pattar, the instrument having been endorsed to the appellant. When the appellant demanded the amount due under the promissory note, the maker deposited with, him as security for payment a. share certificate in respect of shares held by him in the Parli Tile Works, Limited. The certificate was not accompanied by a deed transferring the shares to the appellant, but he claims that notwithstanding this there was a valid pledge of the shares. The suit was contested by the fourth defendant, who is the first respondent in this appeal. On a date subsequent to the deposit of the share certificate with the appellant the first res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a redemption suit which was brought in the Court of the Subordinate. Judge of Agra in 1924, It has reference to a village called Muthamai in the district of Agra, which at one time belonged to a zemindar called Nawal Singh. In this village the plaintiff inherited the interest of the mortgagee under a mortgage of 1893 granted by Nawal Singh to the plaintiff's grandfather : having brought a suit (No. 50 of 1911) to enforce that mortgage the plaintiff purchased Muthumai at the judicial sale in 1923 and thus became vested with the right and title which Nawal Singh had possessed in 1893. The question now raised is as to the amount which he must pay to free Muthamai from the prior charge created by a mortgage granted by Nawal Singh in 1882 over three other villages as well as Muthamai. Is it the whole sum outstanding upon the mortgage of 1882 Or is he, in the events which have happened, entitled to redeem Muthamai on payment of a part th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal is by the plaintiff in a redemption suit which was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra in 1924. It has reference to a village called Muthamai in the District of Agra, which at one time belonged to a zemindar called Nawal Singh. In this village the plaintiff inherited the interest of the mortgagee under a mortgage of 1893 granted by Nawal Singh to the plaintiff's grandfather: having brought a suit (No. 50 of 1911) to enforce that mortgage the plaintiff purchased Muthumai at the judicial sale in 1923 and thus became vested with the right and title which Nawal Singh had possessed in 1893. The question now raised is as to the amount which he must pay to free Muthamai from the prior charge created by a mortgage granted by Nawal Singh in 1882 over three other villages as well as Muthamai. Is it the whole sum outstanding upon the mortgage of 1882? Or is he, in the events which have happened, entitled to redeem Muthamai on payment of a part ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR275
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated January 27, 1938, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi, dated November 30, 1936, in favour of the defendant-the appellant before the Board.2. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, on behalf of the members of the brotherhood of the Digambar Jains, for recovery of possession from the defendant of a house described as 'Jain Dharmashala,' situate at Khatra Mashru in Ward 4 of the town of Delhi, and entered as No. 48 in the municipal registers.3. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have' established their title to, and right to recover possession of, the suit property from the defendant.4. The parties to the suit are Jains, and are governed by the Mitakshara law. In the plaint, it was alleged that the house in dispute was purchased by one Lala Janaki Das, presumably with his own funds, that he 'converted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 27th January 1938, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi dated 30th November 1936, in favour of the defendant-the appellant before the Board. The appeal arises out a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, on behalf of the members of the brotherhood of the Digambar Jains, for recovery of possession from the defendant of a house described as "Jain Dharmasala," situate at Khatra Mashru in ward 4 of the town of Delhi, and entered as No. 48 in the municipal registers. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have established their title to, and right to recover possession of, the suit property from the defendant. The parties to the suit are Jains, and are governed by the Mitakshara law. In the plaint, it was alleged that the house in dispute was purchased by one Lala Janaki Das, presumably with his own funds, that he "converted it" into a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1075
B.J. Desai, J.1. The office of managing agents of a company is, distinguishable from the question of remuneration. Both are assignable : Section 87B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The defendant was a trustee for his brothers both for earning commission as also for management. You cannot divorce management from earning of commission.2. I ask for specific performance of the agreement dated September 18, 1940, (exhibit N). It is an agreement to assign or transfer managing agency of the defendant to himself and his two brothers for a good consideration. The plaintiffs are large shareholders and can protect their interest by jointly managing with the defendants, and this is not measurable in terms of money. The plaintiffs seek specific performance in order to protect and perfect the right which they already had and which they have been enjoying. See Lindley on Partnership, 10th edn., p. 439. The contract to assign the office of management is not a contract of personal service or a contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1944Cal127
ORDERBlagden, J.1. On 24th September 1941, the Champdany Jute Co. Ltd., made out a delivery Order for 50,000 yds. hessian cloth in favour of Messrs Adamjee Hajee Daud & Co. Ltd., or order. Various dealings with this document took place, it being endorsed gen-erally by those in whose favour it was drawn and endorsed again by six persons or com-panies before finally this document came into the hands of the present applicants. Where a document of this kind is negotiated in this manner and treated as though it were the goods that it represents, that which takes place is sometimes called 'symbolic delivery' of the goods. It is also, I think, quite accurate to say that it is a conditional delivery of the goods, much in the same way as the handing over of a cheque is a conditional payment of money, the condition being that when the holder of the Order wants his goods he should be able to get them by presenting it. On 1st October 1941, the present applicants sold the goods represented by this ...
Tag this Judgment!