Court : Chennai
Reported in : 113Ind.Cas.646
Odgers, J.1. The first of these is a revision petition against the order of Mr. S. Venkatasubba Rao, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, dated 30th April, 1925, whereby he appointed a Commissioner to take the accounts in respect of points Nos. 5 to 8 (the meaning of which will be explained later on) and whereby he framed an additional point on which the Commissioner was also to take accounts.2. The second is a petition to revise another order of the same date whereby the same Subordinate Judge allowed a petition by defendants in the suit (O.S. No. 30 of 1916) for an independent enquiry and judgment by that Subordinate Judge on the points in dispute that arise in the suit as the result of the judgment of the Privy Council.3. The litigation of which the suit referred to, No. 30 of 1916, is an off-shoot, originated in No. 35 of 1895 and concerns the Medur and Nidadavole testates. The previous history detailed to us at great length is, I find, set out in the judgment of their Lordships of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom501; (1927)29BOMLR996
Madgavkar, J.1. The accused, Jehangir Ardeshir Rustomji Cama, a Deputy Collector under suspension, was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate, Mr. Willis, under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on three charges in this case and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months further simple imprisonment on each of the first two charges, and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further three months simple imprisonment on the third charge, the sentences to run consecutively. In appeal he was acquitted in respect of the third charge, and the convictions and sentences on the first two charges were maintained. He has applied in revision to this Court against his convictions and sentences. Government have also applied to enhance the sentences. The result is that under Section 439(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused, as he was entitled, has exercised his right to show cause against his convict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal621
Cuming, J.1. This is a Rule granted by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Suhrawardy and Mr. Justice Mitter calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused, the opposite party in this Rule, should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate has erred in holding that the Land Acquisition Collector is a Court and as such his sanction was necessary for a prosecution under Section 207, Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are briefly these : The petitioner sought to prosecute the opposite party for having fraudulently claimed the compensation awarded in respect of Premises No. 10, Howe's Lane, before the Second Land Acquisition Collector knowing that he had no right or rightful claim to such award intending thereby to prevent that money from being taken in execution of a decree or order which had been made or which he knew was likely to be made further by a Court of justice in a civil Court suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal725
Rankin, C.J.1. Plaintiffs are lessors of 31-3, Marquis Street and the Anglo-American Motor Gar Company were lessees under a registered lease, dated 21st December 1920, for a term of three years from 6th November 1919 at a rent of Rs. 500 per month. That lease contained the following clause:Provided further that if the lessees shall regularly and punctually pay the rent hereby reserved and duly observe and perform the covenants and conditions on their part to be observed and performed, then the lessees shall be entitled to a renewal of this demise for a further period of three years on the same terms and conditions as are contained in these presents except that the monthly rent shall be six-hundred rupees instead of five-hundred rupees and that there will be no covenant for a further renewal.2. Also a covenant not toassign or sub-let or part with the possession of the said demised premises without the consent in writing of the lessors first had and obtained, but such consent shall not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal496
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an application was made to Mr. Justice Buckland, purporting to be in the Original Civil v Jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, on behalf of one Girindra Nath Banerjee whom I will call 'the applicant.' The general circumstances giving rise to the application are these. The applicant wa3 arrested on the 25th day of October 1924 at his the then Residence No. 4/3 Malanga Lane in the town of Calcutta. He was kept in custody at the Alipore Central Jail and afterwards at the Midnapore Central Jail. After he had been in custody for some time an order, dated the 19th January 1925, was made under Ordinance No, 1 of 1924 that he should be committed to custody in the Midnapore Jail. On the 12th June 1926 he was served with an order made by the Government of Bengal under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925, by which he wa3 directed to proceed to Midnapore, to report himself to the Superintendent of Police there, to proceed afterwar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom560; (1927)29BOMLR1244
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an issue under Order XXI, Rule 50, of the Civil Procedure Code, as to the liability of one Pillani in respect of a decree passed by myself on February 22, 1926, against the Wadia Woollen Mills Ltd. and Husseinbhai Pillani Wadia & Co. for Rs. 2,00,000 and interest at 8 1/4 per cent, per annum from April 3, 1924. Mr. Pillani disputed his liability on the ground that the liability in respect of which the decree was passed occurred after the date when he had retired from the second defendant firm, and that inasmuch as he had given public notice by advertisement in the Bombay Government Gazette and in four local newspapers, to wit, The Times of India, The Bombay Chronicle, The Bombay Samachar and The Sanj Vartman, he was not liable for the liabilities which the continuing partners incurred after the date of his retirement, For that purpose he relied on Section 264 of the Indian Contract Act. Mr. Justice Taleyarkhan decided this point against Mr, Pillani....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal432
C.C. Ghose, J.1. On the 12th March 1926 the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam, referred to this Court for decision under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act of 1922, the following questions:I Whether the following sources of income are agricultural and therefore exempted from assessment to income-tax under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Act.(i) Jalkar or rents received from fisheries.(ii) Ground-rent from land used for potteries.(iii) Ground rent from land used as brick-fields.(iv) Fees received from the tying up of boats against the assessee's land.(v) Fees received from land used for storing purchase of crops (paiali).(vi) Fees received from cart stands.(vii) Punyaha nazar or nazar paid by fcdnant3 of agricultural holdings at the beginning of the zemindari year.(viii) Nazar for petitions presented to the zemindar dealing with questions of succession, settlement and partition.(ix) Ground-rent for permanent shops at hats and bazar3.(x) Stall fees paid by temporary (daily) sellers at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad927a
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam dismissing petitioner's (appellants) application for execution in respect of certain interest. The question arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner apparently obtained a decree in O. S. 26 of 1910 against one Nataraja Ayyar, and an order for the payment of Rs. 20,000, odd in rateable distribution. Subsequently the respondents filed O. S. 22 of 1913 calling in question the validity of petitioner's decree and for an injunction to prevent petitioner from drawing, the Rs. 20,000. They also applied for and obtained an interim injunction from the subordinate judge. Petitioner appealed to this Court and on 16th January 1914 the Court made the following order Ex. A (p. 2). The respondent's suit, No. 22 of 1913, was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 22nd December 1915, and on appeal the High Court ordered a new trial on 19th October 1916. Previously on 28th January 1916, the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom440; (1927)29BOMLR742
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts as above, proceeded :] It is argued by the learned Government Pleader that one of the offences, namely, that under Section 414, was a cognizable offence and therefore the investigation was legal, and even if the case be considered as relating to non-cognizable offences, the report of the Police should be considered as a complaint under Clause (a) of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if it did not fall under Clause (b) of Section 190. It. appears that the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code mentioned as one of the offences in the charge-sheet is a cognizable offence, and the investigation by the Sub-Inspector in respect of the other non-cognizable offences could not be illegal if they were also investigated during the investigation of the cognizable offences. See the case of In re Venkanna A.I.R. [1925] Mad. 856. As no offence under Section 414 is either alleged or proved to have been committed by the accused i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1927All649
Lindsay, J.1. This case arise from an application made by Pt. Kalicharan Sharma under Section 99-B, Criminal P. C., as amended by Act, 36 of 1926.2. The applicant is the author of a book written in Hindi and entitled 'Bichitra Jiwan' which was first published at Agra in November 1923 and which purports to treat of the life of the prophet Mohammad.3. In October last the Local Government of these provinces took action under the powers conferred by Section 99-A of the Code (as amended by the Act above mentioned) and declared the book to be forfeited to His Majesty on the ground that it contains matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 153-A, I. P. C.4. By the application now before us we are asked to set aside this order of the Local Government on the ground that the book does not contain such matter as is referred to above. In support of his application Pt. Kali Charan pleads:(1) That he has taken his facts and material from authoritative Muslim literature and standard...
Tag this Judgment!