Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-05-1935
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 : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-11-1935
Reported in : [1935]3ITR408(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C. J. :- This matter arises of a statement of case under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 66, by the Commissioner of Income Tax of Bengal. For the year of assessment 1933-34, the Income Tax Officers, for District III (1) made an assessment in respect of certain property in Calcutta, called the Norton Buildings. In the assessment the name of assessee was stated to be B. N. Elias for self and for B. S. Benjamin, Sir Victor Season and A. J. Raymond, 19-D, Bowbazaar Street. Status (whether individual, registered or unregistered firm, Hindu undivided family, company or other associations of individuals). Associations of individuals. Sources of income with exact nature of business - House property. It was stated that the members of the association have the following interest. B. N. Elias - One-third, B. S. Benjamin - One-third, Sir Victor Sasson - One-sixth and A. J. Raymond - One-sixth. The income returned was Rs. 68,209. On that the aforesaid individuals were charged to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-15-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Mad483; 157Ind.Cas.181
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is defendant 4 in the mortgage suit brought by the appellant in O.S. Appeal No. 87 of 1933. The mortgage was executed by-one Appadurai Gramarti, the father of defendants 1-4, and by defendants 1-3, and Appadurai also executed it on be-behalf of defendant 4 who was then a minor. The mortgage comprised a plot of land which Appadurai's father, Tanikachala, had dedicated to a private temple built by Thanikachala on the land. The first three defendants were ex parte. But defendant 4 defended the suit. In his written statement he raised the plea (inter alia) that the particular plot having been dedicated to charity could not be bound by the mortgage. The learned Chief Justice who tried the case permitted the plaintiff-mortgagee to file an additional statement wherein the plaintiff pleaded that Appadurai and his sons had acquired title to the plot by adverse possession and that they were therefore competent to mortgage it. The learned trial Judge found that a title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-22-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Bom250; (1936)38BOMLR380; 163Ind.Cas.532
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner in the matter of award No. 21 of 1935 to amend the title of his petition filed on May 3, 1935, and for leave under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code. The petition was filed to set aside the award dated February 2, 1935, under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 on a submission dated December 17, 1934, to which the petitioner and the Reception Committee of the 48th Indian National Congress were parties. The petition was originally filed against (1) The Reception Committee, and (2) against Abidally Jafferbhai described as the General Secretary of the Reception Committee. On the hearing of the petition in chambers counsel for the respondents raised an objection to the title of the petition on the ground that the Reception Committee was not a registered society and could not be sued as such, and the petition, was adjourned for three weeks in order to enable the petitioner to make such amendments as he might be advised to m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-15-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All579
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision on behalf of one Sahdeo Ram, who has been convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 377, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, 12 stripes and a fine of Rs. 100 or in default four months' further rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and his appeal was dismissed. This revision is filed against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge. The facts found by the Sessions Court were that a small boy Modan aged six and a half years was playing with another boy at the house of the accused and that the accused took him into a room and committed the offence of sodomy on him and the boy Modan was seen by two witnesses to> run out of the house of the accused weeping, and the boy went to his father and told his father his story and took his father with a constable to the house of the accused and the boy pointed out the house and a head constable was called and the boy pointed out the accused and the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-25-1935
Reported in : 163Ind.Cas.566
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried 'before a Special Magistrate of Barakpore on charges under Section 19-A of the Arms Act as amended by-Bengal Act XXI of 1932 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They have all been convicted under those sections and the appellant Aswini Kumar Ghose has also been convicted under Section 19-A of the Arms Act as amended by Bengal Act XXI of 1932. Bimal Krishna Biswas has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and each of the other two appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Besides these appellants four other persons were put on trial. Out of these three, namely Kalidas, Ghose, Lakshman Chandra Adhikary and Panehanan Samanta pleaded guilty and were convicted on that plea and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. They hive been examined as witnesses for the prosecution. Kalidas, prosecution witness No. 37, Lakshman prosecution w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-14-1935
Reported in : (1936)70MLJ700
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing E.P. No. 205 of 1929 in O.S. No. 16 of 1914 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Execution Petition is barred by limitation.3. This petition is filed by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Eapoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was the fourth plaintiff in the suit. The final decree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on 2nd November, 1920; and this petition was filed on 24th June, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on 13th July, 1929, (Ex. G) on an application made by one of the defendants in the suit and one of the items of the decree was deleted, he is entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-14-1935
Reported in : 161Ind.Cas.969
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing E.P. No. 205 of 1929 in O.S. No. 16 of 1914 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Execution Petition is barred by limitation.3. This petition is riled by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Eapoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was the 4th plaintiff in the suit. The final deeree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on November 2, 1920; and this petition was filed on June 24, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on July 13, 1929, (Ex. G) on an application made by one of the defendants in the suit and one of the items of the decree was deleted, he is entitled to have the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-27-1935
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 : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-27-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All706; 157Ind.Cas.157
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption of a sale deed dated 9th November 1928. The suit was filed on the 8th of November 1929. On the 6th of February 1930, the defendants-vendees obtained a deed of gift in their favour which the present plaintiff also sought to preempt by a second suit. It has now been finally held that it was a transaction of gift and was not perceptible. On 20th December 1930, the Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim for preemption, holding that the second transaction was a sale and not a gift. But on 14th December 1931 the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the second transaction was one of gift and accordingly dismissed not only the plaintiff's claim to pre-empt the second transaction but also his claim to preempt the first sale deed. The finding that the second transaction was a gift has been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.2. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whe...
Tag this Judgment!