Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1933)35BOMLR331
George Lowndes, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in the name of the first respondent firm (hereinafter referred to as respondents No. 1) on the original side of the Rangoon High Court, alleging, in effect, a conspiracy between the two named defendants to ruin the business of the respondents No. 1, and claiming Rs. 5,00,000 by way of damages. The first of the two defendants was the appellant, V.M. Abdul Rahman, now deceased, and represented by his heirs. The other was respondent No. 2, who does not appear before the Board.2. After the hearing of the suit had commenced in the trial Court respondents No. 1 were-apparently upon their own application-adjudicated insolvents. On this being brought to the notice of the Judge, he, on February 13, 1929, adjourned the trial, and gave a month's time to the official assignee to consider whether he would proceed with the suit on behalf of the creditors. On March 11, 1929, the Judge being then engaged in the Criminal Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom255; (1933)35BOMLR432; 147Ind.Cas.1227
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal in execution of the decree in suit No. 214 of 1923 against the order of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge dismissing the application of the applicant for the necessary certificate to be sent to the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur under Order XXI, rules 5 and 6, and for an order of transfer of the execution under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The principal ground on which the learned First Class Subordinate Judge dismissed the application is that the application for execution is beyond time under Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. It is necessary to state the facts which have given rise to the contention that the application for execution is barred by limitation. In Civil Suit No. 214 of 1923 the assignors of the appellant, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had obtained a decree against defendant No. 3 on December 14, 1925, to the extent of Rs. 42,940. Defendant No. 3 applied for a review and appeal No. 35 of 1926 was f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad489; (1933)64MLJ640
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is as follows:Whether on the finding that investment in Government securities forms a necessary part of the business of the assessee, the sum of Rs. 56,810 forms the 'profits of any Co-operative Society' within the meaning of the Notification of the Government of India, dated 25th August, 1925.The Notification referred to exempts from income-taxThe profits of any Co-operative Society other than the Sanikatta Salt Owners' Society in the Bombay Presidency for the time being registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (M of 1912) or the dividends or other payments received by the members of any such Society on account of profits.2. The assessees invest large sums received by them in Government securities and the income derived from such investments has been assessed to income-tax. The main objects of the Society, as set out in its bye-laws, art: (1) to collect funds for financing Co-operative Societies, (2) to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom381; (1933)35BOMLR722; 145Ind.Cas.557
Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 5,269-12-0 or such other sum as may be fixed by the Court by way of damages for breach of an alleged agreement to take a lease of the premises in suit for a period of five years at the rate of Rs. 325 per month commencing from March 1, 1924. Plaintiff and his father carried on business in Bombay in partnership in the name of Haji Ahmed Umar and Son up to June 1924, when the plaintiff's father died, leaving the plaintiff who was his only child as his sole heir and legal representative. During his lifetime plaintiff's father had purchased a property at Warden Road, Bombay, known as Ahmed Mansion, the conveyance of which was taken in the name of the plaintiff and his father as joint tenants. After his father's death the plaintiff became and still is the sole owner of the said property. On February 4 or 5, 1924, plaintiff says that he had a conversation on the premises with the defendant about letting to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom234; (1933)35BOMLR376; 145Ind.Cas.138
Murphy, J.1. This matter arises out of a reference which has been made by the learned Sessions Judge of Kanara on the following facts.2. Two persons were being prosecuted in the Court of the City Magistrate, Karwar, under Section 45 (c) of the Bombay Abkari Act. At the commencement of the case, the prosecution was undertaken by the Abkari Inspector, and the accused objecting to this procedure, the learned Magistrate made an order against them and directed that the prosecution should proceed as already started. One of the accused applied to the learned Sessions Judge under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Judge has referred the matter to this Court, his opinion being that under Section 495 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Akbari' Inspector is not competent to conduct the prosecution, as he comes within the connotation of the expression 'an officer of police' in that sub-section.3. There is no direct authority for the view adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1933)35BOMLR507
Atkin, J.1. These are two appeals against conviction and sentence by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The appeal of Gaya Prasad was brought by special leave of the Privy Council after an application for leave to appeal had been refused by the High Court. The appeal of Dwarkanath Varma was by leave of the High Court granted after the special leave had been given to the other appellant. Both appeals were consolidated by order of the High Court. The accused were tried before a bench of the High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Kulwant Sahay and Dhavle JJ. and a special jury of nine persons, on an information exhibited by the Government Advocate by the direction and with the sanction of the Local Government pursuant to Clause 17 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court and Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellant, Gaya Prasad, an Assistant Civil Surgeon, hereinafter called the doctor, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years' ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All241; 145Ind.Cas.367
King, J.1. This reference arises out of an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The applicant B is an advocate practising at Benares. On 26th May 1932 a Bench of this Court passed an order suspending the applicant from practice for a term of three months. The applicant applied for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and on 10th June 1932 a certificate was granted that the case was a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council Under Order 45, Rule 7 the applicant was bound to furnish security, and to deposit the amount required for translation and printing, within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate or within 90 days from the date of the order complained of or within such further period not exceeding 60 days as the Court might upon cause shown allow. The term of six weeks from the grant of the certificate expired on 22nd July 1932 and no application was made for any extension of that term. By an order dated 27th July 1932, a Bench of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal759
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a suit to set aside an award of the Indian Chamber of Commerce upon certain contracts for the sale and purchase jute entered into by the plaintiff. A case, very similar on facts and in principle, was decided by Panckridge, J., in Chong Wong v. Brijmohan Dhandhania Suit No. 187 of 1929 Decided on 11th February 1930. The facts in outline are as follows:2. The plaintiff is a retired District Engineer. In September 1928, he was introduced by one Shisirkumar Ray to the defendant firm represented by Sobhachand. Sobhachand was and is a member of an association called The East India Jute Association, Limited, which was formed in 1927. According to the plaintiff and Shisir, the plaintiff wanted to do 'fatka' business. There were meetings between the, plaintiff and Sobhachand, at one of which, at any rate, Shisirkumar Ray was present. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the first interview between the plaintiff and Sobhachand took place outside the off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All440
Bennet, J.1. This is is appeal by Government against the acquittal of three Doms, Faujdar, Sita and Balli,. of the offence of dacoity, and also-the appeal of four persons who have been convicted of the offence of dacoity Ishri Kurmi, Shiva Gobind Ahir, Damri Gond and Dudnath Dusadh. These four persons have been sentenced to six: years' rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. A first report was made at 5 a. m. on 15th June 1931, at the police station, Ubhaon, in Ballia district, which stated that a road dacoity had taken place three miles away at 11 p. m. on the night of 14th or 15th June 1931. The report was made by Ramkishore Lal, the complainant, and he stated that he was going in a bullock cart along with women folk and his wife's brother Adya Prasad and three coolies from his house towards Azamgarh, and as he was passing along he met four men on the road with lathis and he spoke to then about a fire and they went on; but shortly afterwards when the cart was four fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad646; 145Ind.Cas.594; (1933)65MLJ179
Bardswell, J.1. The suits under appeal have had a long history. The plaintiffs who are ryots in the Gundepalli Zamindary, brought them for a declaration that defendant 1, who is the Secretary of State represented by the Collector of Kistna, is not entitled to levy water tax on the lands cultivated by them, for a refund of such tax already collected for three faslis and for other reliefs. The trial Court and the first appellate Court found in their favour but on second appeal Oldfield and Seshagiri Aiyar, JJ., held that the suits had not been properly dealt with and remanded them for fresh disposal on issues that were then framed. After the remand the first two Courts again both found for the plaintiffs, but, on second appeal, Phillips, J., dismissed the suits. These Letters Patent Appeals are against his decision.2. The lands of the plaintiffs are situated in the village of Chodavaram, a zamindari village. That village adjoins the Government village Ananthapalli, the lands of which are...
Tag this Judgment!