Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad751
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Defendant 10 in O. S. No. 543 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam is the petitioner. O. S No. 643 of 1938 was filed by the respondents who are jenmies for recovery of Michavaram against some of the defendants who are the kanomdars. The respondents represented two thavazhis, the tarwad consisting of three branches. The other thavazhi is represented by the other defendants. A simple mortgage decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 9th August 1934. The final decree was passed on 27th July 1936. E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 was filed by the plaintiffs for bringing the property to sale and a Commissioner was appointed to report as to the survey numbers and the property that was sought to be sold and in his report it is stated that the parties are not at issue in respect of items 1 and 4 of the schedule to the decree. In E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 an order was made directing the plaintiffs to have the survey numbers given in the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant13; AIR1950Mys13
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 105 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, confirming those of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 131 of 1946-47 on the file of this Court.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of the Rs. 513 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 3rd September 1997 in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied on an endorsement on the promissory note dated 7th September 1940 for the payment made towards interest. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act and he has pleaded discharge. This has not been believed by both the Courts and the suit is decreed as prayed for.3. The only point that was argued in this appeal is that the courts below erred in the view that the suit is not barred by limitati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori99
Ray, C.J.1. This reference arises in Second Appeal NO. 60 of 1945. One Baaudev Moharan, Secretary of Hathotto Co-oparative Society, (defendant-appellant) preferred this appeal against the confirming judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur upholding the decree of the Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and either confirmation or recovery of possession of the disputed Inam lands. The same lands had been the subject of attachment and sale at the instance of the appellant-Society in execution of a decree against a member of the Society, a brother of Ogadhu Pooda, the trustee of Sri Jaganuath Mohaparabhu of Hathotto village. The decree was passed against the former, qua, an individual as distinguished from a trustee. Admittedly, the endowment was not bound by the debts, far lees, by the decree, the execution, the attachment, the sale and the proceeding for delivery of possession that followed. The contention, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker83; 1950CriLJ1536
ORDERKrishna Pillai, C.J.1. The reference arises under Section 9, Travancore Newspapers Act (V [5] of 1101) upon a petition presented by the printer and publisher of the newspaper called the Malayans questioning the legality of an order passed by Government whereby the license granted to the said newspaper wan cancelled. The notice given Under Section 6 of tha Act indicated fourteen different articles of several dates, which were said to be seditious and lively (i) to excite disaffection against, and to bring into hatred and contempt, the Government of Travancore, (ii) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between the several classes of the people in Travancore, (iii) to involve habitual publication of defamatory matter punishable Under Section 603, Travancore Penal Code, (iv) dissemination of false information, and (v) publication of matter which is obsoene in character These, if correct, would bring the publications within the miachief Section 5 of Sub-section (i)(a), (i)(a), (ii)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad410
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was heard by the Officiating Chief Justice (Rajamannar O. C. J. as he then was) and myself on 4th February 1948, and as we felt that the decision of a Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72: A. I. R. 1937 Mad. 775 which was followed by the learned trial Judge required reconsideration, we referred the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The order we then made is as follows :'We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The appeal raises more than one question of general importance under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and in regard to one of the points the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 775, which has been applied to the case by the learned trial Judge in our opinion requires reconsideration.' The matter has accordingly been placed no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1950]18ITR72(All)
These are two applications under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The two applications under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act were sent by post from Allahabad to the appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, on the 1st of December, 1945. On the same day a money order of Rs. 200 was also sent. The packages containing the applications were received on the 4th of December, 1945, but the money order of was received on the 7th of December, 1945. The period of sixty days from the date of service of the notice expired on the 5th of December, 1945. The appellate Tribunal thereupon held that the applications had not been received within time and could not be entertained. They relied on the language of section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act which is as follows :-'Within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under sub-section (4) of section 33 the assessee or the commissioner may, by application in the prescribed form, accompanied where applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad243
ORDER1. These are applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners who were detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, (Act I [1] of 1947). As these petitions raised some common questions of law, we thought it convenient to hear and dispose of these questions before considering the merits of each application. The orders of detention under the Act in all the petitions except four, Cri. M. Ps. Nos. 1645 and 1651 of 1949, 1527 and 1611 of 1949 were passed after 12th March 1948, and according to the petitioners on the date on which the orders of detention in these cases were passed, the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force and that therefore the orders of detention were without authority and were illegal.2. The maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Madras Act I [1] of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Act' in the course of this judgment, received the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom171; (1950)52BOMLR84; [1950]18ITR58(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee before us is a joint stock company incorporated in Bombay and they are the managing agents of the United Salt Works & Industries, Ltd., which company also is incorporated in Bombay. The assessee company was appointed the managing agents under the managing agency agreement, dated 1st June 1944, and in this reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1945-46, the relevant previous year being the year ended 30th September 1944. During the year of account the United Salt Works & Industries, Ltd., made a profit of Rs. 10,12,402 from its business at Aden and a profit of Rs. 7,61,165 from its business at Kandla.2. The Tribunal took the view that the total comission payable to the assessee company amounted to Rs. 2,10,816 and out of that Rs. 1,22,750 was attributable to the Salt Works at Aden and Rs. 88,065 was attributable to the Salt Works at Kandla.3. In this reference we are only concerned with the sum of Rs. 88,065, and the narrow question that we have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori146
Jagannadha Das, J.1. Cri Misc. No. 107 of 1949: The petitioner in this case has applied to this Court under Section 491, Criminal P. C., questioning the validity of an order of detention dated 20th April 1949, passed against him, by the Government of Orissa, under Section 2, Orisaa Maintenance of Public Order Act, The petition is dated 4th June 1949, and has been forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent of Cuttack Jail where he was under detention. It bas been stated to us by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Government that this petitioner has since absconded and has gone underground. When this petition came up for hearing before us on 17th and 18th of August, we intimated to the counsel appearing for the petitioner that we would not be prepared to consider the application unless the petitioner presented himself in Court and made himself available receiving the orders of the Court. The petition was adjourned for consideration to 22nd; but the petitioner has not turned up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All162
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. These are two criminal miscellaneous cases arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1948 in which the applicants in Criminal Misc. case No. 941 of 1949 have appealed against their convictions and the sentences of transportation for life that have been passed upon them. In their application they say that they have engaged Sir Iqbal Ahmad to argue their appeal and pray that permission be accorded to him to appear on their behalf in this Court. The other case--criminal Misc. case No. 940 of 1949--arises out of an application by Sir Iqbal Ahmad himself praying for the permission of this Court to argue the said appeal on behalf of the appellants.2. Sir Iqbal Ahmad was an advocate of the Allahabad High Court and was later appointed a Puisne Judge of that Court. In or about the year 1933, on his appointment as a Puisne Judge of that Court he gave an undertaking not to practice in the Court or in the Courts subordinate thereto after his retirement. He continued to wo...
Tag this Judgment!