Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All489
Mukerji, J.1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench for a decision of the following point of law, namely:Where a third mortgagee professes to keep in his hand a part of the mortgage money in order to pay off the first and second mortgages and pays of only the first mortgage, whether in a suit by the second mortgagee to enforce his mortgage it is open to the third mortgagee to insist on his being treated as a first mortgagee whose mortgage must be paid of before the plaintiff brings the mortgaged property to sale.2. The facts of the case are stated in the referring judgment and briefly are as follows:One Ram Chandra was the owner of a certain property. He mortgaged the same for a sum of Rs. 200 to one Paras Ram on 19th October 1915. The next year on 16th October 1916, he made a simple mortgage of the same property in favour of one Ram Lal and one Ganga Sahai, son of Tika Ram. The second mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 400 and' Ram Lal and Ganga Sahai kept a portion of the mortgage m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 138Ind.Cas.849
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by one Bidhuranjan Chakravarti, the publisher of the 'Janasakti' a Bengali Weekly Newspaper published in Sylhet, asking the court to set aside an order made by the Government of Assam on February 26th 1932, directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000 as security.2. Under Section 7(3) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 (Act XXIII of 1931) whenever it appears to the Local Government that a newspaper, in respect of which security under the provisions of the Act has not been required, contains any words, signs or visible representations of the nature describai in Section 4, Sub-section (1), the Local Government may require the publisher to deposit security.3. Under Section 23(1) the publisher may apply to the High Court to set aside the order, and the High Court shall decide if the newspaper, in lespect of which the order was made, did or did not contain any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4 sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal651
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the convictions of the petitioners should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit. The petitioners have been convicted of offences under Section 292 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C, on a charge of criminal conspiracy to publish, sell and distribute an obscene book (viz)., 'Ramsdar Atmakatha' in two editions referred to as editions 3 and 4. The first ground on which the Rule has been issued is that in view of the aims and objects of the author expressed in the preface and other chapters of the book the Magistrate ought to have held that the book is not obscene. The second ground is that on a valid and legal construction of the book in question the learned Magistrate ought to have held that the book does not come within the mischief of Section 292, I. P. C, and the third ground is that the sentences are too severe.2. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All527
Mukerji, J.1. His Lordship after quoting the points referred proceeded.2. The first point as framed above is. meant to decide whether, when a plaintiff sues on a mortgage deed and the mortgage deed not being admitted by the defendant or defendants, he has formally to prove it, it is necessary for him to give evidence of the fact that the deed had been attested by two witnesses; or whether it would be enough for him to comply with the provisions of Sections 68 to 71, Evidence Act. In other words, when. it is not specifically in dispute whether there were two or more attesting witnesses to the deed or less than two, whether it is enough for a party seeking to prove the document to call a marginal witness to prove the signature of the executant and the witness's own signature on the margin, the deed itself bearing on the face of it the attestation of more than one attesting witness. Again, in other words, the question is whether in the three cases decided in this Court : Ram Dei v. Munne ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 149Ind.Cas.903
Williams, J.1. The firm of Kerr Tarruck & Co. prior to the month of October 1927, used to carry on business in Calcutta as importers and dealers. Their shippers used to draw bills of exchange on them for the price of the goods shipped. The plaintiffs used to finance the shippers by discounting these bills or by issuing other bills in exchange and took as security the bills of lading and other documents relating to the goods and the shippers from time to time executed letters of request and hypothecation in favour of the plaintiffs. These bills of exchange were called advance bills as distinguished from other bills of exchange which were handed to the plaintiffs by the shippers for collection only. By the terms of the letters of request and hypothecation it was agreed inter alia that the plaintiffs should accept the shippers bills of exchange drawn upon their indentore (in this case Messrs. Kerr Tarruck & Co.) accompanied by bills of lading, invoices, and marine insurance polices purpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal753
Remfry, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of Kali Charan Ghosh praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or for a mandamus. It appears from the petition that Kali Charan Ghosh was arrested and detained in the Presidency Jail on or about 10th February or 16th February 1932. He claims to be a French subject and it is said that he was arrested near Serampur and that his brother, the present petitioner, was informed on 16th February that Kali Charan had been arrested under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 6 of 1930, Bengal. The petitioner states that in spite of inquiries he had been unable to ascertain the grounds for this arrest, and has not been able to secure a copy of the warrant under which the detenu is detained, and that the detenu is a good and useful French subject and has never been convicted in a Court of law. A rule was issued on 28th April on the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail, to show cause why the body of the detenu should not be produced in this Court on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR1523
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we have already held that we possess powers of superintendence. But the exercise of a power of superintendence is not the same thing as the hearing of an appeal. We have, I think, a discretion to revise or Bet aside any conviction under our powers of superintendence; but we must exercise our discretion on judicial grounds, and only interfere if considerations of justice require us to do so. It is suggested in this case that the order was illegal for this reason. The order was originally made by the District Magistrate ofSholapur, and it is an order which in terms has to be carried out within the District of Sholapur. But the order was served on the accused when he was in jail at Bijapur. The rights of the District Magistrate arise in this way. Section 57 of the Ordinance authorises the Local Government to invest the DistrictMagistrate with the powers of the Local Government under Sub-section of Section 4, and in pursuance of that authority the Lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD MACMILLAN: On 10th June 1929 the schooner "Dorothy M. Smart"sailed for "the high seas"from the French island of St. Pierre with a cargo on board of rum and other liquors, which are dutiable under Canadian law. The vessel was registered in Nova Scotia and with her cargo was the property of the respondent, who is resident in Nova Scotia. On 13th June 1929 the schooner, when at a distance of 11 miles from the coast of Nova Scotia, was boarded by the appellant, an officer in the Customs service of the Canadian Government. The cargo having been found to consist of dutiable goods, the vessel and cargo were seized and taken into port. The validity of the seizure, which was effected in pursuance of powers conferred by the Customs Act of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, c. 42, as amended by 18 and 19 Geo. 5, c. 16, is challenged in the present proceedings on the broad ground that the Parliament of the Dominion in conferring the powers in question exceeded its legislative competence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal745,140Ind.Cas.5
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application by the petitioners named above under Section 23, Act 23 of 1931 [the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931], praying that certain orders of the Governor of Bengal in Council dated 26th May 1932 calling upon the petitioners to deposit securities to the amount of Rs. 1000 each may be set aside in the circumstances set out in the petition. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: The petitioner Satyendra Nath Mazumdar is the publisher of a daily newspaper printed in Bengal and published in Calcutta called the 'Ananda Bazar Patrika' and the petitioner Jagadish Chandra Mukherjee is the keeper of the Ananda Press, situate at promises No. 18, Mirzapur Street, in Calcutta, where the said newspaper is printed.2. Under the orders of the Governor of Bengal in Council, notices under Sub-section 3, Section 7 and Sub-section 3, Section 3 of the said Act, bearing date 20th May 1932 were served upon the two petitioners respectively on 30th May 1933 requirin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom101; (1933)35BOMLR68
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 3,714 on a promissory note passed to him by defendant No. 1 on January 23, 1925, on the allegation that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 lived in union and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were partners of defendant No. 1, and that the promissory note was passed by defendant No. 1 as a partner and manager of the partnership shop.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that defendant No. 3 was a partner of defendant No. 1's firm and that the promissory note was not passed for the partnership business as manager of the firm, and that the debt under the suit promissory note was not binding on defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The findings were arrived at on the ground that the suit was based on the promissory note and not based on the debt independently of the promissory note. He, therefore, held that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not liable on the promissory note signed by defendant No. 1, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants Nos...
Tag this Judgment!