Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal12
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The decree-holder opposite party obtained a decree on 15th May 1947, from the Court of Munsif, Jamalpur, within the district of Mymensingh, against 'The Governor-General of India in Council, New Delhi and B. A. Railway, having its Head Office at 3 Koilaghat Street, Calcutta.' The nature of particulars of the claim on which the decree was passed cannot be ascertained from the records. On 8th December 1947, the decree-holder applied to the Court of Munsif, Jamalpur, under Order 21 Rule 6, Civil P. C., for a certificate of non-satisfaction, A certificate was issued accordingly and a copy o! the order was, as applied for by the decree, holder, directed by the Munsif at Jamalpur to be sent to the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta with a copy of the decree. This order was passed in Money Execution Case No. 86 of 1947. On 13th March 1948, the decree-holder opposite party filed in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, an application for execution of the decree so t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ852
Wali Ullah, Ag. C.J.1. I agree that this application should be dismissed. The full facts of the case are set out in the Orders of my learned brothers, Sapru and Bhargava J J , and I gene, rally agree with the reasons given by them.2. The applicant was removed from practice by an Order of the Special Bench of three Judges in miscellaneous Case No. 243 of 1946 dated 20th December 1946. On 29th July 1947, the present application for re-instatement and permission to practise was made by the applicant. It purports to be an application under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act.2a. We have heard Mr. S. N. Verma, the learned Counsel for the applicant, at length. We have also heard Mr. Kunzru on behalf of the Bar Council and Dr. Faruqi, Government Advocate, on behalf of the Advocate-General, who have both opposed the application. Some argument has been addressed to us on the question whether the High Court acting under Section 12(6), Bar Councils Act can admit fresh evidence and, on the strength of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H25; 1950CriLJ459
ORDERFalshaw, J.1. Ram Singh alias Kundan Singh haa been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, Under Section 802, Penal Code, for the double murder of Diwan Bahadur Diwan Pindi Daaa Sabharwal and his wife Shrimati Parvati Devi, ancl sentenced to death. He has appealed and his eaBe is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence.2. At the outset the legal objeotion has been raised that the trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge was illegal. The grounds on which this objection is based are as follows;3. Since 20th March 19-17 the Punjab Public Safety Act, II [2] of 1947, has been in force at first in the United Punjab, and Eince the partition in the East Punjab. Section 2 (b) of this Act reads, 'dangerously disturbed area means any area declared as such by notification, by the Provincial Government, or any part thereof'. Under this provision the municipal area of Ludhiana was declared to bo a dangerously disturbed area by the Punjab Government by Notification No. 1516 dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All778
Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by Mohan Lal Huja and some other creditors of the Chawla Bank, Ltd,, which will hereafter be referred to as the bank, against an order, dated 17th January 1949, made by a learned Judge of this Court, in exercise of the original company jurisdiction of the Court, under Rule 153, Companies Act (VII [7] of 1913).2. The Chawla Bank, Ltd., was incorporated In British India as a joint stock company, under the Indian Companies Act, in the year 1932, with its registered office at Bannu in the North-West Frontier Province. At the time of its incorporation, the share capital of the bank was Rs, 2,00,000, divided into 4,000 shares of Rs. 50 each; but in 1945 the capital was raised to Rs. 10,00,000, divided into 20,000 shares of Rs. 50 each. The paid up capital amounted to Rs 3.59,400. In course of time the bank was a flourishing concern, and was able to establish thirteen branch and pay offices at various places in the North-West Frontier Province and in the Punja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All296
Desai, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of District Judge of Sitapur in a mortgage suit. Har Bux Singh owned the entire mahal Lalta Singh in village Bhilawan. In 1918, ho executed a mortgage EX. El, in favour of Sheo Dayal and Sheo Sagar for Rs. 2300. In 1921, he executed another mortgage, EX. B17, in favour of Mahant Basudeo Gir, defendant 2, for us. 16000. On 22/ 24-3-1922, he executed one more mortgage, EX. 3, in favour of Sheo Darshan Singh, defendant l, and Jagannath Singh, defendant 5, for Rs. 4000. This mortgage was for the entire mahal Lalta Singh. One Raghubar Singh owned zamindari property in village Tikara. In 1920, he mortgaged it with Sheo Darshan Singh and Jagannath Singh. Thus Sheo Darshan Singh and Jagannatb Singh were mortgagees of two different properties. The share of each was one-half in the mortgagee rights under each mortgage. Jagannath Singh has been paid off his dues and we have nothing to do with his share in the mortgagee right in this dispute. Sheo ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR979
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of the Calcutta High Court, dated June 18, 1946, affirming with slight variation, the decision of a single Judge of the Original Side of that Court, dated August 14, 1944.The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was one for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain shares in a private limited company, together with fractional interest in a partnership business, and it was commenced by two plaintiffs, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal, against four defendants, two of whom, viz., defendants Nos. '5 and 4, figure as appellants before us. Of the other two defendants, defendant No. 2 is not a party to this appeal at all, inasmuch as the suit against him was withdrawn and dismissed in the trial Court and his name was struck off from the list of defendants altogether. As regards defendant No. 1, though he was retained as a party, the plaintiff's gave up their claim against him before the hearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal349
ORDERBanerjee, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an ex parte order made on 22-3-1949, appointing Receiver of a certain Provident Fund money. The matter was mentioned to me on 24-3-1949, & I directed that the order should not be drawn up for a week. In the meantime this application was made.2. The petitioner is the widow of one Jones who in his life time was a senior engine driver in the East Indian Railway. On 29-8-1947, the plff. obtained a decree against the petitioner's husband. The D. H. made an application for execution of the decree on which the order was made as aforesaid on 22-3-1949. The question is whether a Receiver can be appointed of a Provident Fund amount which stood to the credit of the deceased J. D. at the time of his death.3. The solution depends upon the construction to be given to Section 3(2), Provident Funds Act, 1925, & the determination of the effect thereof.4. It is Unnecessary to discuss the matter in detail inasmuch as, Rankin J., in an illuminat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1949]17ITR406(P& H)
ACHHRU RAM, J. - This reference arises out of an assessment on a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs. Jankidas Kaluram in the town of Rewari in Gurgaon district for the year 1943-44, the accounting year ending on December 9, 1942.It appears that this firm has got a one-half share in another firm carrying on business in Jaipur State under the name and style of Messrs. Jankidas Kaluram, Sambar Lake. From the facts stated at the Bar, the correctness whereof was not disputed on the respondents behalf, it appears that the account of the Rewari firm is to be found in the account books of the Sambar Lake concern under four different heads. There is first a current account in the name of Jankidas Kaluram, Rewari, regarding goods and cash received from and sent to Rewari. There is secondly an account in the name of Arjan Singh-Kirpa Ram, Arjan Singh being the father of Jankidas. This is a capital account which has not been operated upon for a considerable period and is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal108
G.N. Das, J.1. These appeals are on behalf of the plffs. appellants. Second Appeal No. 1571 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 103 of 1941. In this appeal the plffs. pray for a declaration of their right of pasturage over the banks of a tank known as Chapra tank & for a further declaration of a right of burial on the southern part of the northern bank of the said tank. They also pray for a permanent injunction restraining the defts. from interfering with the exercise of their right of pasturage & right of burial as aforesaid. The suit was framed under Order 1, R. 8, Civ. P. C. on behalf of the villagers of a village known as Debgram. The right was based on immemorial user & was claimed under three heads, viz., (i) easement of necessity, (ii) lost grant, & (iii) customary right.2. The other S. A. No. 1572 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 105 of 1941. The plffs. are the same in this suit & the right is claimed over the banks of a tank called Boaria tank. The right that is claimed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal240,54CWN262
Chatterjee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Sarkar J., dated 1st March 1949, whereby he dismissed an application presented by a number of creditors of the Tripura Modern Bank Ltd., under Section 153, Companies Act.2. This Bank had a subscribed capital of Rs. 22,50,000 and a paid up capital of Rs. 15,54,000. It was made a scheduled bank in the year 1945, but it got into difficulties thereafter. In the petition it was stated that by reason of various difficulties and the change in the political situation the business of the company was affected and it had to meet liabilities to the extent of over two crores of rupees. Owing to the suspension of business of a number of banks in Calcutta which were also scheduled banks, the company was unable to meet heavy demands and it was not possible for the bank to make further payments without realising its investments.3. The petition discloses that the situation is really serious. The liability of the Bank on the date of the presentation o...
Tag this Judgment!