Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Oct-15-1934
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!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-05-1934
Reported in : (1935)68MLJ1
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Before dealing with the first point to be considered by this Full Bench, I propose to set out some of the facts of this case.2. At 1.34 A.M. on the 13th January of this year the Parcels Express train which left the Egmore Station at Madras, at 10-40 P.M. arrived at Karunguzhi Station on the South Indian Railway There it delivered six parcels. Five of these were handed over to respective owners on production by them of the tickets relating to them at about 7 O'clock on the same morning. The sixth remained undelivered as no one claimed it. It is described by Mr. T.S. Narayanaswami Aiyar (P.W. 28) the Assistant Station Master at Karunguzhi to whom all the parcels were delivered as a bed parcel packed in a date leaf mat. The receipt of this parcel and the others was acknowledged by this witness in Ex. U. In order that parcels could be carried by that train as luggage it is necessary for the senders to have passenger tickets and the number of each pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-21-1934
Reported in : AIR1935All310
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore rejecting an application filed by the applicant, the British India Corporation Ltd. Cawnpore, (hereinafter called the Company), praying that sanction be accorded to the proposed consolidation of the deferred and ordinary shares of the company and that 'the minute suggested be approved.' The application purported to be an application under Section 54(1), Companies Act, (Act 7 of 1913). The section runs as follows:(1) A company limited by shares may, by special resolution confirmed by an order of the Court, modify the conditions contained in its memorandum so as to reorganize its share capital, whether by the consolidation of shares of different classes or by the division of its shares into shares of different classes:Provided that no preference or special privilege attached to or belonged to any class of shares shall be interfered with except by resolution passed by a majority number ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-20-1934
Reported in : AIR1935Bom5; (1934)36BOMLR1021
Blackwell, J.1. In this case the petitioner sues for a divorce by reason of the respondent's alleged adultery and cruelty. Among other defences, the respondent pleads that a previous marriage of the petitioner with one Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim has never been dissolved or annulled by any Court of competent jurisdiction and is still subsisting. The question, whether the first marriage had been validly dissolved before the marriage in suit took place, was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Chief Justice answered that issue in the affirmative, and this is an appeal from his decision.2. The issue was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. From this it appears that on December 4, 1906, the petitioner, who was domiciled in Scotland, married at the General Registry Office in Edinburgh Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim, who was a Sunni Mahomedan domiciled in India (which includes not only British India, but the various Native States). In 1912, the petitioner became a convert to the Mahomedan religion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Feb-26-1934
Sir Sidney Rowlatt: The question in this case, as it finally came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is whether the appellants, who are a body of trustees incorporated by an Act of the Indian Legislature, are liable to be assessed to income-tax and super-tax (which in this respect stand upon the same footing) in respect of the income of the trust or whether as regards the whole or any part of it they are not so liable on the ground that they are not beneficially interested. Certain complications, arising out of previous practice, which affected the case in its earlier stages, were got rid of by arrangement and need not now be noticed. The question so propounded was answered in the affirmative by the High Court in a judgment dated 18th August 1931. This is an appeal by the trustees, an incorporated body. The Act incorporating them (Act No. 4 of 1913) is described in its title as an Act for settling certain properties belonging to Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, Baronet, so as to acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-07-1934
Reported in : 153Ind.Cas.214
1. This is a first appeal brought by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court of first instance, the District Judge of Moradabad. The plaintiff sued on the ground that he was in possession of a certificate granted by the Controller of designs, dated August 17,1929, certifying that a design No. 43516 had been registered in respect of the application of such design to trays of brass or other suitable metal under the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1911. The photograph which is attached shows a large brass tray and the agents for the applicant specified the novelty by stating: 'The novelty of the design lies in the grooves along the sides of the tray'. The plaint set forth that the defendants had also begun to manufacture big trays of this design and that, the plaintiff had given them a notice but that they paid no heed. Paragraph 5 of the plaint stated:According to the certificate granted by the Controller of Design the plaintiff alone is entitled to manufacture big tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-11-1934
Reported in : [1934]2ITR129(All)
The following judgments were delivered.NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is an application by a firm styled Jot Ram Sher Singh of Muzaffarnagar, under Section 66 (3) of the Income Tax Act, for an order requiring the Commissioner of Income Tax to state a case and to refer certain questions for decision by this Court.The case relates to the assessment of income-tax on the applicants for the year 1930-31. The assessees made a return, in which they showed a loss of Rs. 2,845-5-0 in 1929-30. They had to be assessed on the income of the preceding year, i.e., 1929-30, corresponding to the Sambat year 1986. A notice was issued under Section 23 (2) requiring them to prove the correctness of their return. They produced certain accounts, and were assessed, on May 23, 1930 on an income of Rs. 5,113. The order of assessment recorded by the Income-tax Officer, shows that the account books for 1986 Sambat were before him. Whether complete accounts had been produced or those for a particular branch of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-11-1934
Reported in : AIR1934All559; 150Ind.Cas.197
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application by a firm styled Sher Singh Joth Ram of Muzaffarnagar, under Section 66(3), Income-Tax Act, for an order requiring the Commissioner of Income-Tax to state a case and to refer certain questions for decision by this Court. The case relates to the assessment of Income-Tax on the applicants for the year 1930-31. The assessees made a return, in which they showed a loss of Rs. 2845-5-0 in 1929-30. They had to be assessed on the income of the preceding year, i.e., 1929 30, corresponding to the Sambat year 1986. A notice was issued under Section 23(2) requiring them to prove the correctness of their return. They produced certain accounts, and were assessed, on the 30th May 1930, on an income of Rs. 5,113. The order of assessment, recorded by the Income-tax Officer, shows that the account books for 1986 Section were before him, whether complete accounts had been produced or those for a particular branch of the assessees business were the only accounts th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-07-1934
Reported in : AIR1934All798
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal brought by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court of first instance, the District Judge of Morabadad. The plaintiff sued on the ground that he was in possession of a certificate granted by the Controller of Designs dated 17th August 1929, certifying that a Design No. 43516 had been registered in respect of the application of such design to trays of brass or other suitable metal under the Patents and Designs Act of 1911. The photograph which is attached shows a large brass tray and the agents for the applicant specified the novelty by stating: 'The novelty of the design lies in the grooves along the sides of the tray.' The plaint set forth that the defendants had also begun to manufacture big trays of this design and that the plaintiff had given them a notice, but that they paid no heed. Para. 5 of the plaint stated:According to the certificate granted by the Controller of Designs the plaintiff alone is entitled to manufacture big tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-19-1934
Reported in : AIR1935Mad232; (1935)68MLJ41
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case relates to the construction of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration 4ct. Under the clause as it originally stood, 'decrees and orders of Courts and awards' were excepted from registration; but by an amendment made by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, the following clause was substituted:any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immoveable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding.2. In Hementa Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari & Co. (1919) L.R. 46 IndAp 240 (246) : I.L.R. Cal. 485 : 37 M.L.J. 525 the Judicial Committee held, having regard to the wording of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that where a suit is adjusted by a lawful agreement between the parties, the proper course is to recite the agreement in the decree or annex it as a schedule to the decree, but in...
Tag this Judgment!