Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-07-1903
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom276
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. In the year 1898 certain improvements were projected in the City of Bombay, and an Act called the City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, was passed giving to a Board thereby constituted certain powers with a view to carry these improvements into effect.2. On the 25th September, 1902, there was published in the Bombay Government Gazette a declaration purporting to be in pursuance of the Act, stating that the Governor of Bombay in Council had sanctioned a street scheme made by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay under the provisions of the Act (that being the style of the Board thereby constituted) and that certain lands, including those in suit, were 'needed to be acquired by the said Trustees for the purposes of executing the said street scheme' and were required for a public purpose.3. On the 27th November, 1902, the plaintiffs received notices addressed to Pandurang Nilaji, their deceased father, and also to each of them in the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-24-1903
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal106
Brett and Geidt, JJ.1. The present appeal is against an order passed under the Indian Companies Act, VI of 1882, and it is preferred under Section 169 of that Act. A rule was also granted on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The appeal and the rule have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.2. It seems that Purna Chandra Chakravarti, one of the depositors in the Dacca Loan Office Company, Limited, applied to the Civil Court under Section 131 of the Indian Companies Act for the winding up of this company. The ground on which he based his petition was that he was a depositor of more than Rs. 600 in the company; that hg had made a demand for Rs. 200, and that it had not been complied with within the time mentioned in the Act. He further stated that the company was in a very embarrassed state, that Rs. 83,000 due to the company had been barred lay limitation, and that Rs. 28,000 due to the depositors could not be paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-1903
Reported in : (1904)14MLJ37
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Officiating C.J.1.The question raised in this case is indeed a very important one, though the amount in dispute is but a trifle--four annas and one pie--being the amount collected by Government from the appellant in connection with his having erected a platform and a shed over a portion of a path, by the side of which his house is situated in a village in the Kistna District. The effect of the findings by the Lower Court, I take to be that the owners of |the houses adjoining the path inclusive of the appellant, have only a right of way over it, the free-hold in the soil being vested in the Government.2. The point for determination is, whether the levy of the amount in question as land-revenue payable in respect of the site of the platform and the shed, is lawful. A levy of the kind under consideration is known in the language of Revenue Standing Orders as a ' prohibitory assessment.' That the practice of making such collections has been allowed to prevail so long ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-06-1903
Reported in : (1903)13MLJ412
1. In A.A.O. No. 111 of 1902.--This is a matter arising in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 74 of 1896 which was brought by the appellants against the respondents. The decree bears date the 10th November 1897 and the portion of the decree that is now sought to be executed runs as follows: 'That in default of the defendants or any of them paying the sum of Rs. 47,852 with further interest thereon at 7per cent. per annum from date of suit to date of payment on or before the 10th May 1898, the hypothecated property hereinafter described or a sufficient portion thereof be sold and that the proceeds of such sale, etc.' At the time of the passing of the said decree there was pending in the same court another suit No. 82 of 1896 which was brought by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellants and in which they claimed Rs. 93,973-2-10 from the appellants. On the 27th November 1897 an application was made by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants) in O.S. No. 74 under Section 243, Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!