Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-04-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-1930
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR319
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by a third party on behalf of two ladies who were convicted of an offence under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, and sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.2. The accused wore charged with what is usually called picketing. They were stationed in front of a cloth shop, which sold foreign cloth, and they were endeavoring to persuade people not to enter the shop and buy foreign cloth. They were not charged under what is called the picketing Ordinance, but, as I have said, they were charged under Section 17 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with assisting the operations of an unlawful association.3. The question whether particular acts amount to assisting the operations of an unlawful association within the meaning of the section must always be one of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case. There must, I think, be some limitation upon the generality of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-16-1930
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR413
Russell, J.1. The dispute in this appeal has, by reason of a recent decision of their Lordships' Board, been reduced to small compass.2. A statement of the relevant facts is, however, necessary.3. Assessments, in respect of the two financial years 1924-1925 and 1925-1926 were made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), upon the Remington Typewriter Company (Bombay), Limited, as agent for the Remington Typewriter Company of New York. This last-mentioned company is a company incorporated in the United States of America and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling the well-known Remington typerwriting machine. These two companies may be conveniently referred to as the Bombay Company and the American Company respectively.4. The assessments were made in respect of (1) dividends paid by two Indian Companies, viz., the Remington Typewriter Company (India), Limited, and the Remington Typewriter Company (Madras), Limited, to the American Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Mad303; (1931)60MLJ628
Reilly, J.1. In this case a decree was obtained by the plaintiff for money against one Ramachandrayya on the 29th February, 1912. After a number of other execution petitions eventually a petition, E.P. No. 125 of 1924, was put in for execution of the decree against Ramachandrayya on the 18th February, 1924. In the course of those proceedings it came to light that Ramachandrayya had disappeared seven or eight years earlier, and therefore it was presumed that he was dead. The decree-holder in those circumstances wished to prosecute the same execution petition against Ramachandrayya's widow as his legal representative and put in an application E.A. No. 543 of 1924 for that purpose on the 5th July, 1924. It-will be seen that' that application to treat the widow as Ramachandrayya's legal representative was put in more than 12 years after the date of the decree. It was contended that on account of that lapse of time, Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevented the execution, against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-14-1930
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR296
J.W.P. Beaumount, C.J.1. In this appeal accused No. 1 was convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code for using a forged document, viz., a will and accused Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 467 of the same Code which is the section which imposes a penalty for forging a will, the offence of forgery being described in Section 463 of the Code, The facts shortly are that the maker of the will, Malgaunda A, Patil, died on January 7, 1916, and five years later, viz., on January 21, 1921, an application was made by accused No. 1 to the District Judge of Satara for letters of administration with the will annexed. Accused No. 1 was the principal beneficiary under the alleged will. In these proceedings the District Judge came to the conclusion that the will was forged. He came to that conclusion after examining all the accused as witnesses and he dismissed the application. On November 6, 1922, he made an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code sending the case to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-12-1930
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR1650; 129Ind.Cas.886
J.W.F. Beaumont C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza. The matter has got into a considerable state of confusion owing to the parties not having complied with the rules as to procedure. The rules of procedure are made in the long run for the convenience and benefit of litigants. Occasionally expense and delay may be involved in complying with the rules, but if the parties do not comply with the rules, they must take the consequences.2. The material facts are these. The appellants and respondents are both members of the Marwari Chamber of Commerce, and as such they are bound under the rules to submit all disputes between them to arbitration. They had a dispute, and the matter was referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators. The arbitrators were unable to make their award within the fifteen days required under the rules, and they applied to the chairman on January 18, 1929, to extend the time. The time was in fact extended by the vice-chairman. On January 27,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-12-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Bom218
Patkar, J. 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the decree obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2 was a collusive decree on the ground that defendant 2 in order to defraud the plaintiff's passed a hollow sale deed to his brother in law defendant 1 of his share in the plaint lands and that subsequently in collusion with defendant 2, defendant 1 brought a suit against defendant 2 on this sale deed and obtained an ex parte decree. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit and that the decree in Suit No. 332 of 1924 was obtained by defendant 1 collusively with defendant 2 as alleged by the plaintiffs, and therefore gave a declaration that the decree was collusive. 3. Two appeals were filed against the decree, Appeal No. 99 by the plaintiffs urging that the lower Court ought not to have merely given the declaration but ought to have set aside the decree, and Appeal No. 101 by defendant 1 attacking the gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-25-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Cal359
Rankin, C.J.1. This suit was brought so long ago as 1924 by a Company, the Planters Agency Co. Ltd., against the defendant, Bezboruah, the proprietor of a Tea Estate in Assam called the Boloma Tea Estate. Pending suit the plaintiff Company assigned its interest to the Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. which has been substituted as plaintiff, but this assignment may for the present purpose be ignored.2. The suit is brought upon a dead of hypothecation dated 3rd February 1920. This deed in effect provided that the plaintiffs would make advances or grant other pecuniary accommodation to the defendant to an extent not exceeding Rs. 80,000 to enable him to work and carry on the Boloma Tea Estate; but it was expressly stipulated by the concluding words of the deed that advances would be made for so long and to such extent only as the plaintiffs in their discretion should think fit, and that the plaintiffs might discontinue them as and when' they considered it expedient with one month's notice to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-24-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Cal659
Rankin, C.J. 1. In my opinion, this appeal should be dismissed. Mr. Page for the appellant has given a very careful and reasonable argument, but the question is what we think of the merits of the application which has been made by his client that the leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Charter should be revoked and the plaint should be taken off the file and returned to the plaintiff. The plaint, as I have already observed in another appeal (Appeal from Original Order No. 29 of 1930), is open to the criticism in respect that its opening paragraphs are apparently intended to foreshadow a case for damages for misrepresentation of facts inducing the plaintiff company to enter into a contract for the purchase of goods. But, for the present purpose, I shall deal only with the rest which is the main portion of the plaint; and, there again, when I come to the prayers at the end of the plaint, I find that the matter is in no way made clear. It is intended to be an action for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-27-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Cal171,129Ind.Cas.839
Graham, J. 1. This appeal is from a decision of the District Judge of Tipperah confirming a decision of the Munsif, 3rd Court, Brahmanberia, and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of some land within the town of Brahmanberia together with twohuts standing thereon. The plaintiff's case was that defendants 1 and 2, to whom the land and house in question belonged, entered into a contract with him to sell them to him for a sum of Rs. 525, that he paid Rs. 125 as earnest money, that the defendants executed a baynapatra in his favour on 22nd Agrahayan 1322 B. S., and that subsequently they sold the land and houses to defendant 3, who in his turn transferred them to defendant 4.2. It appears that at the trial the baynapatra, not having been registered, was not admitted in evidence by the Munsif as creating a charge upon property following the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh A.I.R. 1926 P.C....
Tag this Judgment!