Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom436; (1925)27BOMLR616
Crump, J.1. This matter arises out of a suit No. 4310 of 1923, which was heard by Mulla J., and disposed off by him on July 3, 1924. The suit was one. by the plaintiff Kasturbai for a dissolution of partnership and for partnership accounts. Among the other defences pleaded by the defendant., he said that there was no partnership between himself and Kastuibai, and that a certain agreement evidencing the partnership had not been acted upon. The learned Judge who heard the suit came to a conclusion adverse to the defendant upon that issue, and, in the course of doing so, he expressed himself very strongly as to the conduct of the defendant in the suit. The following passage from his judgment shows his opinion upon this matter:-As regards the defendant I have no hesitation in saying that it is rarely that one comes across a witness of his typo, who is not ashamed in telling a aeries of lies barefacedly in this Court. The story about his brother being the owner I hold in a false invention.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal860
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendant against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland which was delivered on the 6th of January 1925, by which the learned Judge directed the Defendant's written statement to be struck out as embarrassing. Inasmuch as this appeal is in the nature of an interlocutory appeal, the hearing of it was expedited.2. The application was made by the Plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 16 of the first schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. That rule is as follows: ' The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit:' and it is upon the ground that the written statement would embarrass and delay the fair trial of the suit, that the order has been made.3. The suit was brought by the Plaintiff to recover the sum of Rs. 11,000 and it was alleged that that sum was advanced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad645; 90Ind.Cas.124
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff who is the widow and legal representative of one Goverdhanadoss against the defendant, her deceased husband's brother, for a declaration that the plaintiff's husband and the defendant ware members of a divided family, that the plaintiff's husband was entitled to a half share on all the properties devised under the will of his father and that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the properties, which were decreed to the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, in C.S. No. 163 of 1917 for partition and delivery to the plaintiff of her share and in the alternative for maintenance at Rs. 500 a month and arrears.2. One Raghunathadoss, who was the father of the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, was carrying on a large business, as a jewel merchant. He died about the 20th of October 1903, leaving behind him, the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, his sons. Ha left a will, dated the 19th of October, 1903, which is probatad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad570
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is an unusual case not so much from the circumstances of the crime but from the walk in life of the accused. She is a widow some 29 years of age, who was undergoing a course of training to fit her to be a teacher in the Government Training School at Conjeevaram. She had six months further training to undergo before she became qualified to earn a salary as paid teacher. One of the pupils at the school was a little girl, Kamalakanni by name, and about 9 or 10 years old. In the view we take of this case, it does not matter what her exact age was. It is a short and terrible story. It is not necessary to dissect the evidence; the learned Judge has done it very carefully and the story that emerges is simply this : This woman decoyed this child away from the school, took her to Walajabad about ten miles off, had the ornaments with which the unfortunate child was bedecked taken off and it is practically undisputable that those ornaments were afterwards sold by her. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 92Ind.Cas.695
1. [The accused was a widow some 29 years of age who was undergoing a course of training to fit her to be a teacher in the Government Training School at Conjeevaram. She decoyed one of the pupils of the school about 9 or 10 years of age, took her to a place 10 miles, had her ornaments taken off and afterwards sold them to two goldsmiths and received the sale-proceeds. The next morning the child's body was found floating in water some 4 miles from the place and was very much decomposed. It was clear the child died of asphyxia and the balance of probability was that the child was dead before the body was put into the tank. The accused while she admitted that she was a party to removing the ornaments denied the murder and stated that the removal was at the instance of a person to whom the child's father owed money. On a consideration of the evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the murder of the child to hush up the robbery she committed by taking...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All380; 87Ind.Cas.51
Daniels, J.1. This judgment relates to three connected appeals which have been laid before a Full Bench because of the extreme importance of the questions involved. The appeals challenge the validity of certain sections of the U.P. Municipalities Act. All three arise out of a contested election for seats on the Municipal Board of Muttra which was held in the early part of 1923. There were four candidates for three seats. A poll was held and the appellant, Abdur Rahman, son of Ismail, was one of the persons declared to be elected. Section 22 of the U.P. Municipalites Act, 1916, provides a special tribunal for the decision of disputes arising out of a Municipal election. Under the provisions of that section the respondent, Abdur Rahman, son of Zahuri, presented a petition against the election of the appellant, urging that it was vitiated by various corrupt practices. This petition was heard and determined by the Commissioner as an election Court under the provisions of the Act. The Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR243
Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1925)48MLJ563
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal giving rise to a somewhat important point of limitation, and the dates are important. The appellant is the judgment-debtor, the wife of a certain Zamindar, against whom a suit was filed which resulted in a decree on the 10th April, 1911, subsequently confirmed on appeal to Lower Appellate Court on 28th March, 1912. The decree-holder applied on 15th August, 1912, for execution and attempted to attach the Zamindari properties. Thereupon the defendant raised funds and satisfied the decree on 14th July, 1913, and the execution petition was dismissed. An appeal from the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, dated 28th March, 1912, was preferred to the High Court which, by its decree, dated 23rd April, 1914, introduced a modification which has given rise to the question at issue as in the second appeal the High Court modified the decree by adding the words 'excluding the Zamindari.' After the High Court decree the 1st defendant filed I. A. No. 19 of 1916 for ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All253a
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff, Ram Ugrah Singh, is a graduate of the Benares Hindu University. In the month of July, 1924, he presented himself at an examination held under the authority of the said University, described as the 'Previous LL. B. Examination.' The results were publish-on the 11th of August, 1924, and the plaintiff's name did not appear in the list of candidates who had passed the examination. On the 30th of August, 1924 the plaintiff addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University a petition (Exhibit 5), in which he protested that, under the regulations of the University in force at the time when he sat for the examination and which continued in force until after the results of the said examination had been published, he (the petitioner) had in fact passed the examination in the third class. He, therefore, requested the Vice-Chancellor to re-consider the whale situation, to adjudge the petitioner to have passed the Previous LL. B. Examination and to promot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR787
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, dated May 23, 1919, varying two decrees of that Court in its original jurisdiction, one dated February 28, 1917, in suit No. 62 of 1916, and the other, dated March 15, 1917, in suit No. 60 of 1916.2. Both suits were bought by Baijnath Singh for the redemption of shares alleged to have been mortgaged by him.3. Suit No. 60 of 1916, is against Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba. Suit No. 62 of 1916, was originally against Hajee Mahomed Jamal, but the plaint was amended by adding the defendant Abdul Kareem Abdul Shakoor Jamal. Later, dur- the pendency of the suit, Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba was substituted as defendant in their place, and he is now the sole defendant in both suits.4. The plaintiff's right to redeem is denied on the ground that the several transactions on which the plaintiff relies were not mortgages, but sales with a right of repurchase that has expired.5. The trial Ju...
Tag this Judgment!