Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All489
Walsh, J.1. Two questions are involved in this reference, The first is, whether the exemptions from attachment and sale in execution of a decree, contained in the proviso to Section 60 of the Code, apply to a mortgagee's decree for sale.2. I have had the advantage of studying the judgments of my two brothers. They fully cover the ground and it is not necessary to do so again. They differ fundamentally, and each judgment appears on the face of it to be unanswerable.3. On the one hand, the section distinctly prohibits the sale of this property in execution of a decree. On the other hand, as Mr. Justice Mukerji's judgment shows, there is much in the section which is inappropriate to a mortgagee's decree for sale.4. Where a section of an Act is capable of two renderings, or is said to mean less or more than it says, it is a maxim of interpretation that one must look at the scope and object of the enactment. For this purpose it is helpful to recall the history.5. The rights of a mortgagor h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal588
Buckland J.1. The plaintiff who describes himself as a dealer and broker in stocks and shares, sues to recover the sum of Rs. 40,875 as damages suffered by him in his firm of N.L. Roy & Co. by reason of the defendant having neglected and failed to deliver certain shares which he agreed to sell to the plaintiff. In the first paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that between the 7th August and 13th September 1919, the defendant entered into various contracts with him in his firm of N.L. Roy & Co. by which the defendant agreed to sell various lots of shares in limited companies at various rates. A statement is annexed to the plaint giving particulars of the contracts and a specimen form of the contract in suit is attached. The plaintiff further pleads that the time for delivery of the shares was extended by mutual agreement to the 16th October 1919, and that on that date he made a tender of the price, and thereupon, the defendant having failed and neglected to deliver the shares ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal600,79Ind.Cas.520
Mookerjee, J.1. These are two appeals by the first and the second defendant respectively, in a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits, upon declaration of title. The facts material for the determination of the questions in controversy are beyond dispute and may be briefly recited.2. On the 17th January, 1913, the first defendant executed four documents in favour of the plaintiff, namely:(1) a patni patta in respect of lands described in schedule ha of the plaint;(2) a darpatni patta in respect of lands described in schedule kha of the plaint;(3) a mourasi mokrari patta of the de-buttar lakhraj resumed chakran lands described in schedules ga, gha and una of the plaint; and(4) a maurasi mokrari patta of the aima and resumed chowkidari chakran lands described in schedule cha of the plaint.3. The first and second documents were taken in the name of the plaintiff himself; the third and fourth documents were taken by the plaintiff in the name of the third defendant. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1924)26BOMLR595
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated November 9, 1920, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which varied a decree, dated September 25, 1917, of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah.2. The suit is for recovery of the amount of principal and interest due by the appellant to the respondents (the plaintiffs) under a mortgage of late May 27, 1910. The Subordinate Judge gave decree in the mortgage suit but only allowed simple interest. The High Court allowed compound interest.3. The substantial question raised on the appeal is whether the appellant, in the circumstances proved in the case, fell within the protective provisions of Section 2 of the Indian Contract (Amendment) Act, 1899. It may be convenient to set that section out in full:--2. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is hereby repealed, and the following is substituted therefor, namely:--16.--(1) A contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1924)26BOMLR292
Atkinson, J.1. The action out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the appellants to restrain the respondents K. and J. Cooper, a firm carrying on in Bombay the trade and business of publishers of educational books, from printing, distributing or otherwise disposing of copies of a certain book published by them hereinafter described, and to recover damages and other relief. The ground on which this relief was claimed was that the appellants were entitled to the copyright of a certain book entitled 'Plutarch's Life of Alexander. Sir Thomas North's Translation. Edited for Schools by H.W.M. Parr, M.A.,' and that the respondents by the publication subsequently in the year 1918 of their aforesaid book entitled 'Plutarch's Life of Alexander the Great. North's Translation, edited with Introduction, Marginalia, Notes and Summary by A. Darby, M.A.,' had infringed the copyright to which the appellants were entitled in the earlier compilation.2. The text of the appellants' book consiste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom325; (1924)26BOMLR155; 79Ind.Cas.1012
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit arises out of a contract by which the defendant Bank in Bombay agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs in Manchester fifty bales of American bleached yarn double 40 c. i.f. Bombay on certain terms. The contract itself is contained in two telegrams, viz., one dated December 17, 1919, despatched by the Bank to the plaintiffs at Manchester and the second despatched from Manchester by the plaintiffs on December 24, 1919.2. On December 24, 1919, the plaintiffs also wrote to the Bank in Bombay as follows:--We duly received your two telegrams of the 17th instant asking us to place sundry orders at the best possible prices, for which we thank you. We beg to confirm our cable informing you that we had placed.' [Then they set out the price of the goods.] 'We may say that we have booked these prices at the lowest possible prices and earliest shipment. In the present state of our market it is impossible to guarantee delivery, and it must be understood, in case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1924Mad657; (1924)46MLJ274
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore wherein he revoked the sanction to prosecute the respondents granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore. The application is under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code which has been amended by Act XVIII of 1923. The old section allowed application to be made by a private party. This has now been abolished by the amended section and no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, etc., or of the Court when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in that Court. Mr. A. V. Visvanatha Sastriar, who appears for the respondents, takes more than one preliminary objection. We have only heard him so far on one, and that is the question whether sanction proceedings can now be entertained under the Crim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1924)ILR47Mad262
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.1. The question for decision is whether an English company, with sterling capital, is liable to assessment under the heading 'Tax on Companies' under the Madras City Municipal Act, IV of 1919. This depends on the proper interpretation of Section 110 and of Rule (7) of Schedule IV which must be read together. That section runs:Every incorporated company transacting business within the city for profit . . . shall pay by way of licence fee . . . a half-yearly tax on its paid-up capital on the scale shown in the taxation rules in Schedule IV but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand, if and as soon as it has transacted business in the city for the period prescribed in Section 113.2. Turning to Rule (7) of Schedule IV, it runs:Companies shall be assessed by the Commissioner on the following scale:Paid-up capital--lakhs of rupees. Half-yearly tax. RS.A. More than twenty ... ... ... 1,000B. More than ten, less than twenty ... 500etcetera.3. That has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1924Mad420
Spencer, J.1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother and I regret that I am unable to agree with his conclusions.2. I agree with the opinion of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes that Madras Act IV of 1919 does not either expressly, or by implication, confer on the Commissioner of the Corporation power to determine the value in the currency of British India of any sum, expressed in any currency, other than that of British India and that under Rule 7 he can only impose assessment under Section 110, in respect of those companies, the paid-up capital of which is expressed in rupees. In this view, the first two questions of the case stated for the opinion of the High Court, under Rule 17 of Schedule 4, will have to be answered in the negative and it becomes unnecessary to express an opinion on the third question.3. On three points, I am constrained to differ from my learned brother. In the first place, I do not consider that it is legitimate for us to hazard a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal476
Mookerjee, J.1. This rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner, JJ., on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendranath Chakrabarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Grown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.2. The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1.923, by Inspector Hernchandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that ho is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched but nothing suspicions or incriminating was found. The petitioner, after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but the application ...
Tag this Judgment!