Court : Kolkata
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 : Chennai
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 : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1935Cal298
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. These two rules were issued at the instance of the defendants upon the plaintiff opposite party in a suit instituted in the Court of the Small Causes, Sealdah for recovery of damages. The case of the plaintiff opposite party briefly stated is as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of Premises. 25 and 25 A Harish Mukerji Road Bhowanipur P.S. on 7th June 1933 and 8th June 1933 defendant 2 i.e., Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. served notices upon him demanding payment of the charge for supplying electric current and intimating that on failure thereof the supply would be cut off. The amounts covered by the said notices were paid in time by the plaintiff. No notice of discontinuing the current of the aforesaid premises on account of their arrears was ever served on him. He was never informed by defendant 2 that the electric connexion of the said premises would be cut off, for non-payment of the charges for supplying energy to his other premises. Though nothing was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR640
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of Section 20 of the Indian limitation Act (IX of 1908) as amended by the Indian Limitation Amendment Act (I of 1927), Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined.2. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between October 17, 1929, and July 17, 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom424; (1930)32BOMLR1035
Shingne, J.1. This is a suit to recover a debt due on two promissory notes Exhibits 54 and 56, executed by defendant No. 3 in his personal capacity. The promissory note Exhibit 54 dated June 3, 1925, was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 alone and the promissory note Exhibit 56 dated July 81, 1925, was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. There is evidence to show that the dealings of both the plaintiffs are joint and the Court of first instance has found that both the plaintiffs are jointly interested in the two promissory notes in suit. This finding is not challenged by respondent's pleader. Exhibit 54 was for a sum of Rs. 5|200 due under an account and Exhibit 56 was for a sum of Rs. 300. Out of this sum of Rs. 300 a sum of Rs. 100 is stated to have been borrowed on June 7, 1925.2. Five persons were impleaded as defendants one of whom, , viz., defendant No. 5, is a minor. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are full brothers and defendant No. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR855
Shaw, J.1. The Courts below agreed. The question which arises has reference to the taxation upon sugar and the point involved is represented to be of very great general importance to all mercantile communities in India which deal with that article.2. Their lordships are satisfied that both the Courts below have come to a just conclusion.3. From the documents produced with the stated case it is clear that the subject of sugar taxation, and particularly the methods of its imposition, have been for some time a matter of concern to the dealers in the article and of communication with the Government of India.4. It is to be noted that in 1911 a letter was addressed by the Under Secretary to the Indian Government Department of Commerce and Industry to the Secretary of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce at Calcutta. The letter noted previous correspondence and in particular that it had been represented by the Karachi Chamber of Commerce supported by the Bengal and Bombay Chambers of Commerce that ...
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 : (1950)52BOMLR501
Greene, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Fort William affirming on appeal a judgment and decree of the same Court in its original jurisdiction. The questions raised in the litigation relate to the validity of two resolutions of the respondent company Lothian Jute Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company'). By the first of these, resolutions (which were passed at a requisitoned general meeting of the company held on June 3, 1945), the appellants (other than S.P. Bose, who was one of the requisitionists), seven in number, were appointed to be directors of the company in addition to the four existing directors, one of whom was the respondent Dr. Satya Charan Law. By the second resolution it was resolved that the termination of the appointment of the managing agents of the company, Messrs. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. was to be recorded and in any event that they were thereby forthwith removed from their office. In the action the respondent Dr. Law on b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Wright: The appellant is the Official Assignee of Madras in whom the property vested in insolvency of C.K. Narayan Ayyar and Sons (who will be referred to hereafter as the insolvents); The question in the appeal is whether the appellant or the respondents are entitled to the proceeds of certain consignments of ground nuts; the primary issue is whether the respondents who had advanced moneys on the security of the railway receipts in respect of these ground nuts obtained a valid pledge of the goods. Certain further or alternative questions will be dealt with subsequently. The appellant succeeded before Waller, J.; his decision was, however, reversed on appeal by the High Court of Judicature of Madras, Appellate Jurisdiction; the appellant now appeals to His Majesty in Council. There is little dispute about the facts. The insolvents did a large business in ground nuts, which they purchased from the up-country growers; the nuts were then despatched by rail, arrived in Madras by one o...
Tag this Judgment!