Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-21-1937
Reported in : AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-1937
Reported in : (1938)40BOMLR746
Shadi Lal, J. 1. These consolidated appeals arise out of an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover, from the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'the railway'), a certain sum of money on account of the price of the work done by them for the railway. The circumstances which have led to the litigation may be shortly stated.2. On March 31, 1920, one Ramji Madhoji, (described hereinafter as the contractor), the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, entered into three contracts with the railway for doing earth work, bridge work and miscellaneous work respectively, in the construction of a branch railway line known as the Amda Jamda branch. The terms of each contract, which were embodied in a document variously described as schedule of works or schedule of rates, prescribed, inter alia, the rates at which payments were to be made to the contractor for various items of work to be done by him.3. In May, 1920, the contractor commenced work in the sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-17-1937
Reported in : AIR1939Mad634; (1938)2MLJ100
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a petition for revision against the order passed by Mr. Mack, District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry, declaring the petitioner to be a tout under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners' Act.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Government Pleader to the effect that the order passed by the lower Court is not open to revision. The point is of considerable importance as it involves the question of valuable rights of a citizen and has therefore to be carefully examined.3. The contention raised by the Government Pleader is based on the addition of Sub-clause. (2) to Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which did not find a place in the corresponding Section 107 of the prior Act of 1919. Sub-clause. (2) of Section 224 of the present Act reads as follows :Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-09-1937
Reported in : AIR1938Bom347; (1938)40BOMLR478
Blackwell, J.1. On March 24, 1930, R.E. Thompson applied for a patent in the United Kingdom relating to improvements in safety razor blades of the thin flexible type having external cutting edges and a medial slot and which were intended to be bent transversely and maintained in a position of curvature during use. A patent was granted to him in the United Kingdom on September 24, 1931. The specification and the certificate of the Controller relating to the granting of that patent are exhibit D.2. On May 19, 1930, R. E. Thompson made an application for a similar patent in India, and he claimed the priority date of the United Kingdom patent. On June 4, 1931, a patent was granted to him in India for sixteen years from September 7, 1933, and the certificate of the Controller and the patent-specification are exhibit A.3. On October 23, 1931, the Indian patent was assigned by Thompson to the plaintiffs. The assignment and the certificate of the Controller as to registration thereof are exhib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1937
Reported in : (1938)40BOMLR700
George Rankin, J.1. The appellant and respondent are each possessed of an estate in the district of Cuttack in Orissa. These estates are situated on opposite banks of the river Kharsua-the appellant's estate of Aul being on the southern or right bank, and the respondent's estate of Kanika on the northern or left bank. The dispute between the parties is as to the ownership of an island chur which by 1913 had formed in the bed of the river at a spot between the appellant's mauza of Ekmania and the respondent's mauza of Patarpur. The chur is about seventy acres in extent.2. The appellant on November 19, 1928, sued the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, claiming title not only to the chur but also to forty-eight acres of the river. The trial Judge by his decree dated' July 9, 1930, found for the appellant as to 1951 acres of the chur and 24 acres of the river. The respondent's appeal to the High Court at Patna was limited to the 1951 acres of the chur. On January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-1937
Reported in : (1938)40BOMLR257
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 28, 1935, upon a question of law referred to the High Court by the present appellant under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question arises out of the assessment of the respondents to income-tax for the financial year ending March 31, 1932, and concerns the computation of the profits or gains of their business for the year of account ending on December 31, 1930, under Section 10 of the Act.3. The respondents are a limited liability company doing business atAhmedabad as manufacturers of cloth and yarn. For the purpose of their assessment for the year ending March 31, 1932, they made a return under Section 22(i) of the Act on July 18, 1931, to the Income-tax Officer, which consisted of (a) a copy of the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company for the accounting year ending on December 31, 1930, which showed the profit for the year as Rs. 2,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-15-1937
Reported in : (1938)40BOMLR343
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising the question, whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer has correctly computed the depreciation allowance under Section 10(2) (vi) of the Act on the original cost to the assessee company itself, notwithstanding the fact that it was being assessed under Section 26 [2) of the Act as the successor to the partnership firm known as the Mazagaon Dock.2. The facts giving rise to the reference admit of no doubt. The year of assessment is the year 1935-36, soi that the previous year expired on March 31, 1935. On April 1, 1935, the assessees, the Mazagaon Dock, Ltd., acquired from a firm known as the Mazagaon Dock the assets of that firm, The assessees made a return of their income for the year ending March 31, 1935, based on the profit and loss account for that year of the vendor firm, the assessees themselves having no income for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-05-1937
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR45
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a certain design for printing saries. The certificate of registration of the design with a specimen print on a piece of voil is exhibit A. The design consists of a border and, what has been at this trial called, the body or the background of the sari. The design was registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) and therefore the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the use of the design for printing textile goods and selling the same in British India.2.The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants imported into Bombay ten cases of Japanese prints for sale in Bombay, the border of which is identical with or a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design and that the defendants applied the design to the goods contained in the ten cases without the licence or consent of the plaintiffs and were publishing or exposing or causing to be published or exposed for sale and selling the goods.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-05-1937
Reported in : AIR1939Bom103
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a certain design for printing saries. The certificate of registration of the design with a specimen print on a piece of voil is Ex. A. The design consists of a border and, what has been at this trial called, the body or the background of the sari. The design was registered under the Patents and Designs Act (2 of 1911) and therefore the plaintiff's have the exclusive right to the use of the design for printing textile goods and selling the same in British India. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants imported into Bombay ten cases of Japanese prints for sale in Bombay, the border of which is identical with or a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design and that the defendants applied the design to the goods contained in the ten cases without the license or consent of the plaintiffs and were publishing or exposing or causing to be published or exposed for sale and selling the goods.2. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-28-1937
Reported in : AIR1938Bom182; (1938)40BOMLR52
Engineer 1. This is a petition for winding up of the Aryan Life Assurance Society, a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. The liability of the members is limited by guarantee. Clause 5 of the memorandum of association is as follows :-Every member of the Society undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Society, in the event of the same being wound up during the time that he is a member, or within one year thereafter for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Society contracted before the time at which he ceased to be a member, and the costs, charges and expenses of winding-up the same and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories amongst themselves, as may be required, not exceeding Rs. 25.3. The petition is by eleven petitioners, and it was presented on March 31, 1937. Section 22 of the Indian Life Assurance Companies Act (VI of 1912) provides that-The Court may order the winding-up of a life assurance company, in...
Tag this Judgment!