Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All764
Mukherji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107, Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50, which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant, was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has challenged the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 40Ind.Cas.429
Wallis, C.J.1. As regards the second question my answer is that, in a suit for specific performance of a contract by a member of an undivided Hindu family to sell his share, it is not permissible to join the other members of the family as defendants merely with a view to obtaining partition and possession of the alleged vendor's share as against them. It may, I think, be taken as the settled and salutary practice of this and other Courts in India, where parties properly sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of land are in possession of the land, to allow a prayer for possession to be added to the prayer for specific performance, thereby obviating the necessity for filing s fresh suit for possession to which there could be no defence. Bugata Appala Naidu v. Ghengalvala Jogiraju 32 Ind. Cas. 237 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 77. It is, however, in my opinion quite a different thing to allow a stranger to make the members of a joint Hindu family defendants in a suit for a partition, un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.313
Teunon, J.1. These are six applications made to this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and of Section 195 (6) read with Section 195 (7) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In each case the applicant was the defendant and the opposite party the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The suit having been dismissed, the defendants applied to the Trial Judge for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs under Sections 209 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction having been refused, in these applications, for the hearing of which I and Chaudhuri, J., have been constituted a Divisional Bench by his Lordship the Chief Justice, we are invited to revise and set aside the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and to giant the sanction for which application was, and is, made.3. At the hearing Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, a Vakil enrolled and ordinarily practising in this Court, was authorised by the plaintiffs-opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR926
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a petition intituled In the matter of immoveable property situate at Navrangpura and In the matter of Ratanji Ramaji and others, all minors. It sets out that the petitioner is the karta of a Hindu joint family, and that the coparcenary property is vested in him, his minor sons and grandsons and his brother and minor sons of his brother, all the minor coparceners being mentioned in the title of the petition. Then the petition sets out the property of the family, and alleges that certain debts have been incurred by the petitioner as karta on behalf of the joint family, the debts amounting approximately to Rs. 10,000. Then it is alleged that an offer has been obtained for the purchase of one item of the coparcenary property, being that mentioned in the title, for a sum of Rs. 66,000 odd, which is alleged to be a very good price, and that the purchaser in the contract has stipulated that the petitioner as guardian of the minors should obtain the necessary sanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR251
Chagla, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendants for setting aside an ex parte order made by Mr. Justice Kania on July 28, 1941,. and for setting aside the service of the writ of summons effected pursuant to the said Judge's order upon the defendants as representing all other members of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of this Court, for damages for wrongful termination of his services by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society. The object of this society, as apparent from the rules which have been put in, is to provide any member of the society with legal assistance for his defence in the event of his being prosecuted for an offence or offences, under the Indian Railways Act or the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him and arising out of and in the discharge of his duties, or of actions believed to be within the scope of his du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom301; (1936)38BOMLR593
Broomfield, J.1. This litigation is concerned with the rights of the parties in the patilki watan of the village Masuti in the Bagewadi taluka of the Bijapur district. The plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and who now appeals, is the adopted son of one Giriyeppagauda, and as such claims to be entitled to the right of service as patil, and also to the lands in the possession of the defendants which form part of the watan. The last undisputed holder of the rights and lands in question was Ningangauda, the adopted son of Irappa Ningappa. He died in 1891, leaving no one in that particular branch of the family except a sister Ningava. The parties to the present litigation belong to collateral branches of the family. Their exact relationship to propositus is a matter of much dispute, but it is common ground that, apart from certain difficulties arising from the fact that Parutagauda, the ancestor of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was given in adoption, to another family, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR1047
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated November 28, 1933, whereby the appeal of one of the present respondents, viz. Lachman Singh, was allowed and the suit as against the said Lachman Singh and :his share of the mortgage property was dismissed. The plaintiffs are Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh and his two manor sons and the suit was brought for foreclosure of a mortgage dated June 23, 1909, purporting to be executed by Himmat Singh (now deceased), Mulu Singh and Musammat Jamna Kunwar, mother and certified guardian of the said Lachman Singh, who was then a minor, in favour of Surendra Bahadur Singh in respect of certain zemindari property to secure a loan of Rs. 18,000 and 4 1/2 per cent. interest in order to pay off prior mortgages at a higher rate of interest. The defendant-respondents Nos. 1-9 are heirs of Himmat Singh, No. 10 is Lachman Singh, Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are Mulu Singh and hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR1119
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from (1) a judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Madras, dated November 4, 1938, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1,003 of 1938, which, on a reference by a division bench of the same Court, held that the orders of Pandrang Row J., a single Judge of the Court, on an application for writ of habeas corpus and relative applications, and dated October 21, 24, and 26, 1938, made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 986, 990 and 985 of 1938 respectively, were null and void, (2) a judgment and order of the said division bench, dated November 7, 1938, made in petition No. 1,003 in implement of the above judgment, and ( 3 ) a judgment and order of the said division bench, dated November 7, 1938, made in petition No. 985, dismissing the application for a writ of habeas corpus.2. The appellants challenge the validity of certain warrants issued by the Resident for the Madras States under Section 7 of the Indian Extradition Act (XV of 1903 ) to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR197; 108Ind.Cas.465
Crump, J.1. This is a petition by the Tata Iron Steel Company Limited under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. The members of the company are of four kinds :-(1) first preference shareholders; (2) second preference shareholders; (3) ordinary shareholders; and (4) deferred shareholders. The first preference shareholders are entitled to a fixed cumulative dividend at the rate of six per cent, per annum calculated on the profits of the company in any one year. The second preference shareholders are entitled to a similar dividend at the rate of seven and a half per cent, per annum. After these dividends have been paid, the ordinary shareholders are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to eight per cent,, and then the deferred shareholders come in, and are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to twenty-five per cent, per annum, That is to say, the profits, which it is determined to distribute every year are devoted to paying dividends first to first preference shareholders, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All396
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are three defendants' second appeals arising out of three separate suits to recover certain-sums of money. The points in issue between the parties in all the three suits are exactly alike and we therefore propose to dispose them of by one judgment. A firm styled 'Mohan Lal Babu Lal' of Aligarh, drew three hundis upon themselves. The form of these hundis was as follows:ToBhai Mohan Lal of the good and prosperous place of Aligarh, from Mohan Lal Babu Lal of Aligarh whose compliments please accept.We draw, one hundi on ourselves for Rupees 1,000 in words (one thousand) double of Rs. 500 payable after 60 days from the date...here deposited with Bhai Mangal San Jaideo-Prasad.Please pay to a 'Shah' after making usual enquiries in accordance with the usage of the market.2. The three hundis in suit were endorsed by the firm of Mangal Sen Jaideo Prasad, the defendants, as follows:This hundi is sold to Hoti Lal Babu Lal by Mangal Sen Jaideo Prasad.3. The plaintiffs in ...
Tag this Judgment!