Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All208
1. This is an appeal from an order filing an agreement of reference to arbitration. The applicant Thakur Shiva Mangal Singh got certain ornaments injured with the defendant company for Rs. 18,000 with a guarantee that if the articles be lost by burglary and house, breaking at any time within the period fixed, then the company shall pay or make good all such loss or damages not exceeding the sum of Rs. 18,000. There were a Large number of other conditions contained in numerous paragraphs printed overleaf among which there was a clause that if any question or difference arose between the insured or any claimant upon this policy and the company as to the meaning and effect of this policy or as to any claim by or any right or liability of either party by virtue thereof, the same shall be referred to arbitration and be decided by arbitrators mutually chosen or by an umpire chosen by them previously to commencing arbitration, and the award shall be binding and conclusive on the parties to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1946All306
Braund, J.1. This is a case referred to us under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, 1922, by a strong Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is Rani Amrit Kunwar Sahiba, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rani.' The Rani is the wife of Raja Ravi Sher Singh Bahadur, the Ruler of Kalsia State, and is the sister of His Highness the present Maharaja of Nabha State. Kalsia and Nabha States were formerly part of what were known as the Cis-Sutlej States, which are now under the superintendence of the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States.2. The Rani for some years past has lived at Dehradun in British India with her sons and daughters who are being educated there and it is common ground that in the year of assessment she was resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4A, Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant accounting year is 1938-39; and the relevant assessment year is 1939-40. In the assessment year, the Rani received at Dehradun a sum of Rs. 14,744 from Kalsia ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All273; 153Ind.Cas.733
Mukerji, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a matrimonial suit. The suit as it originally instituted was based on the following allegations:The petitioner is a European domicile in India and since his very childhood has been deficient in mentality. He had to be looked after by bis relations throuf'hout his life. The respondent is a woman of loose character and has been so from her girlhood. Her brothers and brother's son, in October 1930, land on other occasions, several times threatened the petitioner that unless he married the respondent, he would be visited with 'dire consequences,' that the ground on which those threats were held out was a false one, being to the effect that the petitioner had 'deprived the respondent of her caste.' The respondent was already married and her husband, Mohammad Ali, was still alive. But in spite of this fact the petitioner, on account of the threats and being an 'idiot,' went through a form of marriage with the respondent, on lOfch Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All737
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge of Bareilly from an order of the election commissioners purporting to act as a civil Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C. As the learned District Judge happened to be one of the Commissioners himself he referred the case to this Court recommending that it should be transferred from his file. Without prejudice to the question whether an appeal lay we directed that the case be transferred to the High Court.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that if the commissioners had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 476, Criminal P.C. no appeal lay from their order at all. We thick that the preliminary objection cannot prevail. The commissioners have professedly acted as a Civil Court and assumed jurisdiction under Section 476, Criminal P.C. As an appeal is expressly provided from an order passed by a civil Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C., the present appeal does lie even though ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All740; 153Ind.Cas.824
Niamatullah, J.1. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by any learned brother and desire to make a few observations on some of the questions of law which ha has so elaborately discussed in his judgment. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pointed out that the contract between the parties was entered into at Baroda, where payment was to be made, and that the defendant's place of business is also at Baroda. The plaintiff's reply to this objection is that the cause of action for the suit arose partly, at any rate, at every one of the places where, according to the terms of the contract between the parties, sleepers could be delivered and that Agra was one of the places where the contract made it permissible for the plaintiff to make delivery. The agreement does not mention in clear terms that the plaintiff could deliver at Agra; but the language employed in the various orders can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori143
Ray, C.J.1. The question, involved in this appeal, is whether a plaintiff can avail himself of the benefits of the doctrine of part performance of a contract for sale as against an invasion on his rights by an attaching creditor of the transferor (promisor.) He had objected to the attachment by advancing a claim in Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The claim having been rejected he brought the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises.2. The appeal was heard 'ex parte', and the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them invite our attention to such authorities as could be cited by the respondent had he been represented before us.3. The facts, in short, are that the disputed properties belonged to defendants 2 to 12. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them. After decree, passed on 2-9-1936, the aforesaid defendants separated amongst themselves and the disputed properties fell to the share of defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1902)12MLJ37
1. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims as owner three items of property, each, of which he describes as a plot of certain dimensions with the granite pial built thereon, immediately to the east of his dwelling house and to the west of the street and prays that a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the defendant (the Municipal Council of Madura) 'from interfering with or from causing obstruction to the plaint sites, from removing the granite pials built on the plaint sites or from taking any steps to remove the same.'2. The defendant in his written statement states that the slab-stones which the plaintiff was required to remove, have been only recently put up, that as the defendant has all along been using the drain below the slab-stone, the plaintiff cannot acquire any prescriptive right against the defendant, that the construction in question being admittedly a projection over the drain in front of plaintiff's house, the defendant has every right to remove the same under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 140Ind.Cas.331; (1932)63MLJ450
Reilly, J.1. The questions referred to us are(1) whether the High Court has power to interfere with a decision of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act,(2) whether the Board of Revenue has in this particular case exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it, and(3) what should be 'the final order to be passed in this case,' i.e., on this revision petition.2. It appears that under Section 164 of the Estates Land Act the Local Government ordered that a survey should be made and a record-of-rights should be prepared for 21 villages in the Mandasa Zamindari in the Ganjam district, which was done. On an application made by the ryots of the villages the Local Government afterwards ordered under Section 168 of the Act that a settlement of rent should be made for the villages. The Revenue Officer appointed for the purpose settled the rents for the villages. The ryots being dissatisfied, appealed against his orders to the Board of Revenue, which had been appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad123; 140Ind.Cas.767; (1932)63MLJ906
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner was the first accused in the case tried by the learned 4th Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The case against him was that at 4 A.M. on the 5th April, 1932, he instigated the 2nd accused to paint on the surface of the road the words ' Boycott British goods'. In consequence of his abetment, and in his presence, accused 2 painted the word ' Boycott' on the road, and then was arrested by a Head Constable of the C.I.D. He has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) and under Section 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), and has been sentenced for each offence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, the sentences to run concurrently.2. It is contended in the first place that on the facts found the petitioner could only have been found guilty of abetment of the offences if any committed by the second accused. He was not charged with abetment, but with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad569
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case was, assuming the prosecution evidence to be true, that an offence under Section 480 of the Indian Penal Code had not M been made out. I am of opinion that if the petitioner sold to a customer soap which was not manufactured by Pears in a box E upon which the name of Pears appeared as a maker of soap, he used a box with a mark thereon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the soap contained in the box so marked was manufactured by Pears, and by so doing, he used a false trademark and was guilty of an offence under the section. The argument that it had not been shown that Pears had acquired a trademark, in the sense in which the word is used in the English Patents, Designs and Trademarks Acts, in the design which is printed on the box in which the soap was sold, is beside the point. Under Section 478 of the Indian Penal Code, 'Trademark' includes any trademark which is regist...
Tag this Judgment!