1
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-21-1937
Reported in : AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-11-1937
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
Decided on : Feb-10-1937
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
Decided on : Feb-19-1937
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
Decided on : Mar-03-1937
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!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-03-1937
Reported in : AIR1937Mad610; 171Ind.Cas.101
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 0. Section No. 7 of 1922 inter alia against the respondent's father, who was defendant No. 5 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 96 of 1919), that a decree for possession was passed against defendant No. 5 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 April 3, 1935, mesne profits were awarded against defendant No. 5 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 dale, namely July 22, 1935, but that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-20-1937
Reported in : [1937]5ITR349(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The facts of this case are set out very fully in the case which has been stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax and I do not propose to re-state them here. There are, however, two matters which were admitted by both sides during the argument. The first is that we have been asked by both sides to decide this matter as if the return of income-tax by the North British Mercantile Insurance Company were made strictly under rules 25 and 35 made by the Central Board of Revenue under Sec. 59 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.Rule 25 provides :'In the case of Life Assurance Companies incorporated in British India whose profits are periodically ascertained by actuarial valuation, the income, profits and gains of the life assurance business shall be the average annual net profits disclosed by the last preceding valuation, provided that any deductions made from the gross income in arriving at the actuarial valuation which are not admissible for the purpose of income-tax asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-02-1937
Reported in : AIR1938Bom115; (1937)39BOMLR1309
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 5,998 as principal and Rs. 4,001 as interest from the suit property. His case was that the property in suit had been gifted to him by one Mahamad Asmal by a gift-deed on April 3, 1919. Prior to the gift-deed, there had been two mortgages in connection with the property : on March 14, 1918, part of the property had been mortgaged by Mahamad Asmal to the plaintiff himself for Rs. 999, and on November 29, 1918, the whole of the suit property was mortgaged by Mahamad Asmal to one Darasha for Rs. 4,999. The mortgage to Darasha provided that the mortgagee should pay off the prior mortgage of Rs. 999 to the plaintiff. One day prior to the passing of the gift-deed, on April 2, 1919, the mortgage to Darasha was paid off. On the mortgage-deed (exhibit 32) there is an endorsement that Isap Bapuji (the present plaintiff) had on that day (April 2, 1919) paid Rs. 4,999 on behalf of the mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-05-1937
Reported in : AIR1938Bom173; (1938)40BOMLR77
Rangnekar, J.1. This case illustrates some of the difficulties which a judgment-creditor in this country meets with in realizing the fruits of his decree, and it raises a point of some importance relating to the effect to be given to a foreign judgment under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. First as to the facts : The Native State of Savanur lies in the district of Dharwar and the Collector of the district is generally the Political Agent there. It is common ground that the State has an independent civil and criminal jurisdiction. Any decree made by a Court in the State has the effect of a foreign judgment in British India. The appellant as manager of a joint and undivided Hindu family advanced certain moneys to the respondent who admittedly was a watandar and a mankari holding watan property within the jurisdiction of the Savanur State. In June, 1920, an account of the monetary dealings was made up, and a sum of Rs. 15,000 odd was found due by the respondent to the appellant in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-1937
Reported in : AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
Tag this Judgment!