Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal738,140Ind.Cas.304
C.C. Ghose, J.1. These are two applications (1) by Tarit Kanti Biswas-- publisher of the newspaper Amrita Bazar Patrika and (2) by Mrinal Kanti Ghose, keeper of the Amrita Bazar Patrika Press, under Section 23, Act 23 of 1931, the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, praying that certain orders of the Governor of Bengal in Council dated 22nd June 1932 calling upon the petitioners to deposit securities to the amount of Rs, 3,000 each may be set aside in the circumstances set out in the petitions. Under the orders of the-Governor of Bengal in Council notices under Sub-section (3), Section 3, Indian Press-(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 dated 22nd June 1932 were served on the petitioners directing them to deposit 'with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, securities to the amount of Rupees 3,000 each in money or the equivalent thereof in securities of the Government of India on or before 26th July 1932. The securities demanded have been deposited with the Magistrate. According to the L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1933)65MLJ423
ORDERRamesam, J.1. These are two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of certain proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act. In C.M.P. No. 6459 the petitioner is the Zamindarini of Mandasa in the Ganjam District. In C.M.P. No. 5155 the petitioner is the Zamindar of Seitur in the Ramnad District. Connected with the latter petition are C.M.Ps. Nos. 2310 of 1931 and 2074 of 1932 in which the petitioners are different sets of tenants in the Zamindari of Seitur. In all the petitions the first important point that arises for decision is whether a writ can be issued in respect of proceedings passed by the Board of Revenue under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The Zamindarini of Mandasa had previously filed C.R.P. No. 192 of 1926 to the High Court in connection with the same matter. At the time when the revision petition was filed, that is, on 17th December, 1925, there was a decision of Devadoss and Waller, JJ., which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad231
Ramesam, J.1. These are two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of certain proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Ch. 11, Madras Estates Land Act. In C.M.P. No. 645 the petitioner is the zamindarni of Mandasa in the Ganjam District. In C.M.P. No. 5155 the petitioner is the zamindar of Seitur in the Bamnad District. Connected with the latter petition are C.M.Ps. Nos. 2310 of 1931 and 2074 of 1932 in which the petitioners are different sets of tenants in the zamindari of Seitur. In all the petitions the first important point that arises for decision is whether a writ can be issued in respect of proceedings passed by the Board of Revenue under Ch. 11, Madras Estates Land Act.2. The zamindarni of Mandasa had previously filed C.R.P. No. 192 of 1926 to the High Court in connexion with the same matter. At the time when, the revision petition was filed, that is, on 17th December 1925, there was a decision of Devadoas and Waller, JJ., which held in V. Narasimha Rao v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom217; (1933)35BOMLR252
Patkar, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits Nos. 588 of 1924 and 587 of 1924. Suit No. 588 of 1924 relates to two mortgages, (1) Exhibit 160, dated October 31, 1912, in favour of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for Rs. 15,000 passed by defendant No. 4, the Mutawalli of the properties attached to the Juma Masjid and the dargas of Nasiruddin and Abdul Hamid situated at Navsari, and (2) Exhibit 159, dated March 17, 1910, in favour of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 passed by defendant No. 4 for Rs. 1,500. The companion suit No. 587 of 1924 relates to a sale-deed dated July 31, 1918, for Rs. 6,845, Exhibit 124, passed by defendant No. 4 and his mother.2. The plaintiff is now appointed a Mutawalli of the wakf property and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the trustees of the mosque in the Baroda territory to which the wakf relates. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the mortgagees under the mortgage-deeds, Exhibits 159 and 160 in suit No. 588, and defendant No. 8 is another mortgagee o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad123; 140Ind.Cas.767; (1932)63MLJ906
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner was the first accused in the case tried by the learned 4th Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The case against him was that at 4 A.M. on the 5th April, 1932, he instigated the 2nd accused to paint on the surface of the road the words ' Boycott British goods'. In consequence of his abetment, and in his presence, accused 2 painted the word ' Boycott' on the road, and then was arrested by a Head Constable of the C.I.D. He has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) and under Section 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), and has been sentenced for each offence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, the sentences to run concurrently.2. It is contended in the first place that on the facts found the petitioner could only have been found guilty of abetment of the offences if any committed by the second accused. He was not charged with abetment, but with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom132; (1933)35BOMLR163
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Belgaum, who confirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bail-Hongal. The plaintiff-Municipality sue defendant No. 1 (with defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as sureties) for the balance of a sum of Rs. 1,076-13-0 which he had to pay under a contract in the form of a lease dated March 20, 1926, (Exhibit 16), by which the Municipality let to the defendant for the sum of Us. 4,500 the right of recovering jakat from March 15, 1926, until October 6, 1926, from all pilgrims to Shree Yellamma Devi, vehicles and animals. Then, in the contract the rates to be charged on persons, vehicles and animals are specified. The first charge is on every person above five years of age one anna and the other charges are on animals and vehicles. The defendant paid part of the consideration, but he has not paid the last instalment for which the Municipality now sue.2. The defence of the defendant is that it was beyond the power of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom245; (1933)35BOMLR388; 145Ind.Cas.164
Rangnekar, J.1. These two appeals and the revision application arise out of suits filed by one Balkrishna against the defendants to recover the amounts due to him on promissory notes passed in favour of 'the shop of Balkrishna Saraf'. Shortly after the institution of the suit Balkrishna died, and on an application by his two sons, Umakant and Narhari, the plaint was amended and they were brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff'. The principle suit in which evidence was recorded was suit No. 61 of 1925. The defendants put in a written statement in December, 1925, and the main defence was that the claim of the plaintiffs under the promissory note was satisfied by payment made to Narhari, the younger son, in respect of which the latter had passed a receipt. It may be stated that the total principal sum due to the 'shop of Balkrishna Waman Saraf' was about Rs. 5,380 exclusive of costs and interest. Besides that there was an outstanding decree for Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom272; (1933)35BOMLR397
Baker, J.1. A preliminary question arises in this appeal as to who is the heir of respondent No. 1, Bhagirthibai, the original plaintiff. The contest is between Neelava, respondent No. 4, who is the widow of Chanbasappa, the separated brother of Bhagirthibai's husband Shivlingapa, and Shivlingappa's three sisters Akavva, Sangava, and Kushava. The point is of importance as Neelava supports the appellant, and therefore if she is found to be the heir of Bhagirthibai there is not likely to be much oppostion to the appeal. It is settled law in the Bombay Presidency that the sister inherits immediately after the father's mother and before the father's father under the Mitakshara. But it is contended that her place in the order of succcession is affected by Act II of 1929, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, Section 2, which provides that a son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister, and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession next ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sterling v. Constantin - 287 U.S. 378 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) Sterling v. Constantin Nos. 11 and 453 Argued November 15, 16, 1932 Decided December 12, 1932 287 U.S. 378 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. The Governor of a state is subject to the process of the federal courts for the relief of private persons when, by his acts under color of state authority, he invades rights secured to them by the federal Constitution. P. 287 U. S. 393 . 2. The suit is not a suit against the state. Id. 3. In a suit to restrain a state official from violating federal constitutional rights by action under color of state law, the fact that it may appear that he exceeded his authority under that law does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. Id. Page 287 U. S. 379 4. In a suit to restrain a state official from invading property rights under color of state constitutiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom239; (1933)35BOMLR462
Patkar, J.1. The mortgage-bond, on which defendant No. 1 obtained a decree, was executed by one Balwantrao bin Nana Deshmukh as heir of Parvatibai for her debts, and Survey Nos. 159, 160, 161 and 162 belonging to her were mortgaged under the mortgage-deed. According to the compromise in the partition suit of 1896 between the heirs of Parvatibai, Survey No. 159 was allotted to Keshavrao, the plaintiffs' grandfather, free from the mortgage-debt and the liability to pay the mortgage-debt was allotted to the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 6. In execution of the partition decree the plaintiffs got possession of Survey No. 159, The mortgagee was not a party to the partition decree.2. The mortgagee brought a suit on the mortgage in 1914 against the members of the family to enforce the mortgage. The present plaintiffs were defendants Nos. II and 12 in that suit. During the pendency of the suit the mortgagee gave a purshis by which he consented to abide by the decree in the partition suit and ha...
Tag this Judgment!