Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H53; 1950CriLJ480
ORDERDas, C.J.1. This application for bail raises an important and indeed an interesting question as to the power of the High Court to grant bail to persons who have not yet been arrested on any actual charge of any offence or even on suspicion of their complicity with any offence but who apprehend that they may be harassed by being arrested on unfounded suspicion or a false charge.2. The application has been made by two petitioners. The petitioner Amir Chand is a practising lawyer at Karnal and is also a Municipal Commissioner at Panipat/ He is a Director of several companies at Karnal, Panipat and Delhi and ia the Chairman of the Board of Directors of one of them. The petitioner Baghu-nath Bass claims to have been a leading businessman of Gujranwala having had a mill at Kamoka in the district of Gujranwala and paying annually Rs. 35,000 as land revenue and Bs. 3,000 as income.tax. Since the partition of the Punjab, this petitioner migrated to Delhi where he is the Chairman of the Boa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal466
Sinha, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 10718-4-0 alleged to be due to the pltf. from the defts. 1 to 4 as drawers & acceptors of a hundi dated 13-11-1938, from deft. 5 as indorser of the hundi & from deft. 6 on the footing that he agreed to discharge the liabilities of the deft. 5.2. The pltf. & Din Mahommad used to carry on business in partnership in the name of East India Export Co. & Asiatic Produce Co. In 1933 they decided to terminate the partnership. The defts. 1 to 4 had drawn & accepted a hundi for Rs. 10,000 payable to the said firm or order 56 days after date. In accord & satisfaction of the pltf.'s share in the partnership, the said Hundi was indorsed by the said firm through Din Mohommed in favour of the pltf. on 14-11-1933. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent as on & from 31-12-1933 & on 14-2-1934 a deed of dissolution was executed by the pltf. & Din Mohommed. The deed provided, inter alia, that Din Mahommad would be entitled to realise all the outstand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H150; 1950CriLJ725
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act. The petitioner before us is K. Narendra, Printer and Publisher of the Urdu newspaper 'The Daily Pratap' of New Delhi. The petitioner was ordered to deposit a security of Bs. 6000 Under Section 9 (1), Press Aot and the amount was depoaited by the petitioner on and June 1948. By his Order No. F-8 11/48 Press, dated 10th December 1948, Mr, Shankar Parshad, Chief Commissioner of Delhi, forfeited the amount of the security because certain articles and news items published in a number of issues of the Daily Pratap came within the mischief of 8. 4 (i), Press Act. The offending material was printed in seven different issues of the newspaper. Of these five are news items and two are editorial comments. It was alleged that the subject-matter of these articles and news items fell within Clauses (b), (d) and (h) of Section 4 (1), Press Act. The petitioner's application is directed against the order of forfeiture pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal23,54CWN58
P.N. Mitra, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was commenced by the respondent, the National Petroleum Co. Ltd. against the appellant Ram Protap Kayan for ejectment of the latter from a corrugated sheet shed and godown forming part of premises No. P-2 Paharpur Siding Road of the Port Commissioners of Calcutta in King George's Dock. There was also a claim for damages for wrongful occupation which was provisionally laid at Rs. 9400, The respondent's case was that its predecessor-in interest the National Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as the company) entered into business relationship with the appellant, the terms whereof were set out in an instrument of agreement executed by both the parties on 31st March 1981, that one of the terms of the said agreement was that the company would provide for the appellant a suitable shed and godown at a monthly rent of Rs. 60 in which the appellant would fit up his tin manufacturing machines and of which he would remain in occupat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All11
Wali Ullah Ag., C.J.1. This is an application Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The applicant, Sir Gulab Singh, is the ex-Maharaja, Rewa State. The Rewa State acceded to the Indian Union in August 1947. On 20th May 1948, the Governor-General passed an order addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Dehra Dun. It is an order passed under the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, as adapted by the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation (Adaptation) Order, 1947, promulgated on 26th August 1947, and directs that Sir Gulab Singh, the applicant, shall be placed under personal restraint at No. 10, Dolialwala, Dehra Dun, and be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the Government and the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulations, 1818. In pursuance of this order--the warrant of commitment--the applicant is being kept in personal restraint at Dehra Dun. By means of this application, it is prayed that the applicant may be set at liberty inasmuch as his detention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10th December 1945, delivered on a reference made to it under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, (Act XI [11] of 1922), as amended by various amending Acts including the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1939 (Act VII [7] of 1939). The appellants are the assessees. The assessment was made with respect to the year 1942-1943, the previous year being 1941-1942. [2] The question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are exempt from taxation in respect of a part of their income amounting to Rs. 7,612, derived from the sale of wood, bark, leaves, usufruct of trees, etc., on the ground that: (a) the income was derived from a permanently settled estate and (b) the income was agricultural income within the meaning of S. 2 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922. [3] Before stating the facts, it will be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All404
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. Mr. A. P. Dube, learned counsel for the applicants, and the Deputy Government Advocate are agreed that in all these oases the same point his been raised and the decision in one case would govern all the connected cases. Learned counsel have, therefore, given to me the facts of only one case (Cr. Revn. No. 1380 of 1913) as all the other cases are and to be exactly similar.2. On 16-3 1946, 60 bags of alsi were sent from Allahabad by the accused, Bachchu Lal Gupta, to a firm of commission agents at Satna, firm Sukhnandan Prasad Hanuman Prasad. The arrangement was that the commission agents would sell the alsi and after deducting their commission remit the balance to Bachchu Lal Gupta at Allahabad. Satna is in Rewa State outside the United Provinces. At the Octroi barrier at Chak Ghat the goods were weighed and entries were made in certain forms in triplicate, one form wag given to the sender, another was retained by the office and the third was given to the carrier. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom134; (1950)52BOMLR189
Fazl Ali, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave of this Court and it is directed against a judgment and order of a division bench of the Bombay High Court confirming the judgment and order of a single Judge of that Court by which he dismissed the appellant's motion for setting aside an insolvency notice taken out by the respondent-company.2. The respondent-company is a private limited liability company in which there are only four shareholders, viz. Mrs. Byramji, Mr. and Mrs. Cassad and the appellant. In November, 1945, the company filed a suit (No. 1726 of 1945) in the High Court at Bombay against the appellant claiming a number of reliefs, which need not be set out here. Subsequently, Mrs. Byramji and Mr. and Mrs. Cassad applied to be made parties to the suit and they were joined as plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. After the suit had been heard for some time, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and a consent decree was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori6
Ray, C.J.1. This is defendant 8's appeal in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage dated 27th July 1926 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 executed by defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Narain Gantayat. The aforesaid mortgage was executed in full discharge of a prior mortgage dated 16th December 1911 for a consideration of Rs. 8000. The latter consideration was made up of cash advances from time to time under promotes and the interests that accrued due thereon. It is undisputed that out of the consideration of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 6000 represented interest accruing due on the pronotes and the prior mortgage bond, the balance being the amounts advanced in cash. Defendants 1 and 2 are the primary mortgagors. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 6 and 7 are sons of defendant 2. Defendant 8, the present appellant is a, purchaser of Schedules B-1 and B-2 properties subject to the mortgage. Defendants 9 to 12 are also subsequent purchasers of certain minor items of mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal399,54CWN70
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement under Section 153, Companies Act. The Company was incorporated in the year 1921 with an authorised capital of Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 80,000 shares of Rs. 25 each. The authorised capital is now divided into 4,00,000 shares of Rs. 5 each. The issued capital is RS. 20,00,000 and the amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 19,86,898. The Registered Office of the Company is at 18, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The object of the Company is, inter alia, to deal in cotton and to carry on the business of ginning cotton, spinning yarn and manufacture of linen cloth and other goods.2. The Managing Agents of the Company are M/s Hemendra Nath Dutta & Sons Limited, a private limited company. They were so appointed on 10th March 1943 for a period of 20 years. Two of the Directors of the Managing Agency Company, viz., Hemendra Nath Dutta and Rabindra Nath Dutta are also Directors of the Company. The bus...
Tag this Judgment!