Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.820
1. This -is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant, Musammat Haidari Begum, prays that, on the grounds stated in her affidavit, this Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite party (namely S. Jawad Ali Shah, the applicant's husband) to produce before the court the minor, Section Mazhar Ali Shah, at an early date and that thereupon the child may be delivered to the applicant. For the purpose of disposing of this application we need only state the salient facts very briefly. Syed Jawad Ali Shah was married in 1928 to the applicant. They had a son, Section Mazhar Ali Shah, whose age is now about 4f years. In July, 1933, the applicant was living with her husband and the child at Gorakhpur. On July 30, she left Gorakhpur for Lucknow in order to attend a ceremony at her parents' house. She left Gorakhpur by the night train. On her husband's advice she left the child with her husband, to avoid the risks of a night journey on the un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom86; (1934)36BOMLR68; 150Ind.Cas.467
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This suit started as long ago as 1920. It was a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who claimed a sum of about Rs. 79,000 odd, as being due to them by the defendants, for acting as commission agents to the defendants to buy and sell piece-goods.2. The defendants in their written statement alleged that no proper accounts had been delivered, that the plaintiffs had committed various breaches of duty as agents, and the defendants said that they would pay what was due, but that the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was not due.3. In 1924 the matter was referred to the Commissioner for taking Accounts to take an account of the dealings and transactions between the parties. The matter proceeded before the Commissioner, or rather before three different Commissioners, for a period of five years ; and on June 22, 1929, the Commissioner made his report. On July 11, 1929, the plaintiffs took out exceptions to that report; and on September 27, 1932, the learned Judge made his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1934)66MLJ193
1. Of this batch of appeals, the first four have been preferred by A-1, A-8, A-2 and A-3 respectively and the last one by A-5 to A-7. The persons charged and tried in the Lower Court were eight, of whom the 4th accused was acquitted. The rest are the appellants before us. All these appellants were jointly charged for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code (charge No. I). The 1st accused was further charged under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of moneys belonging to the Guntur Cooperative Urban Bank and held by him in trust for the said Bank, aggregating to Rs. 25,340 between 15th February, 1929 and 14th February, 1930. He was charged for a similar offence to the extent of Rs. 24,607-4-9 between 15th February, 1930 and 14th February, 1931 (charges Nos. II-A and II-B). The rest of the appellants were charged individually for abetment of criminal breach of trust committed by the 1st accused in respect of various sums under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All273; 153Ind.Cas.733
Mukerji, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a matrimonial suit. The suit as it originally instituted was based on the following allegations:The petitioner is a European domicile in India and since his very childhood has been deficient in mentality. He had to be looked after by bis relations throuf'hout his life. The respondent is a woman of loose character and has been so from her girlhood. Her brothers and brother's son, in October 1930, land on other occasions, several times threatened the petitioner that unless he married the respondent, he would be visited with 'dire consequences,' that the ground on which those threats were held out was a false one, being to the effect that the petitioner had 'deprived the respondent of her caste.' The respondent was already married and her husband, Mohammad Ali, was still alive. But in spite of this fact the petitioner, on account of the threats and being an 'idiot,' went through a form of marriage with the respondent, on lOfch Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom194; (1934)36BOMLR359; 150Ind.Cas.555
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the lands described in the suit, and certain mesne profits. The suit failed in the. lower Court because the learned Judge held in effect that the defendant was a permanent tenant. The three issues in the lower Court were:1. Is the permanent tenancy alleged by the defendant proved?2. Is the suit barred by time by reason of defendant's possession as a permanent tenant to the knowledge of the plaintiff for more than twelve years before suit?3. Is plaintiff estopped in any way from bringing this suit?2. All these issues were answered in the affirmative. The real question in this appeal is whether the defendant's permanent tenancy is proved. Now, it is suggested that permanent tenancy of the suit lands was granted to the predecessor of the defendant by the predecessor of the plaintiff by a document dated February 17, 1865. The learned Subordinate Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR237
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated June 24, 1930, confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Etah, dated April 22, 1929, in the matter of the execution of a final decree for sale dated July 29, 1922, in a mortgage suit.2. The appellant is the successor of Abdul Jalil Khan, a zemindar of Aligarh, who died on October, 1923.3. The material facts are as follows :- Abdul Jalil Khan in 1909 or 1910 borrowed money from various people, and several decrees were made against him.4. The decrees were simple money decrees, and the property, which was attached in execution of the decrees, being ancestral property, the execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. On August 29, 1911, the Collector, as he was entitled to do, granted a lease to Habib-ur Rahman Khan of the property belonging to the judgment debtor, Abdul ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.699
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majasty in Council from an order of a Bench of this Court suspending the applicant who is an enrolled Advocate, for a period of three months. A preliminary objection is taken by the Government Advocate that no leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council can be given by this Court. It is urged that the suspension of the Advocate is in the exercise of the power especially conferred upon this Court by Clause (8) of the Letters Patent and by the Bar Councils Act of 1926 and that when exercising such power the High Court is not exercising any jurisdiction, much less civil jurisdiction. It is, therefore, contended that Clause 30 of the Letters Patent would not at all apply and there would be no appeal to the Privy Council. It is further contended that the case not being a civil case to which Sections 109 and 110, Civil Procedure Code can apply, no leave can be granted under those sections.2. Reliance is placed on the view which has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Yarborough v. Yarborough - 290 U.S. 202 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202 (1933) Yarborough v. Yarborough No. 14 Argued October 12, 13, 1933 Decided December 4, 1933 290 U.S. 202 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus 1. A decree of a state court fixing the obligation of a divorced father for the support and education of his minor daughter held binding, under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, on the Page 290 U. S. 203 courts of another state to which the daughter and the divorced mother had removed and in which it was sought to force additional contributions from the father by attachment of his local property. P. 290 U. S. 208 et seq. 2. By the law of Georgia, a decree in a divorce suit fixing the permanent alimony that the husband must pay for the support and education of his minor child may be entered by consent of the husband and wife before the rendition of the two concurring verdicts which the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom307; (1934)36BOMLR643
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree obtained by the present respondent against the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The decree was passed on November 24, 1923, for Rs. 5,550 in suit No. 973 of 1921. Two years later, another suit was filed by the present appellants against the respondent. That was suit No. 1169 of 1923 in which the appellants ultimately got a decree in their favour against the respondent on February 20, 1925. An appeal was filed against this latter decree by the present respondent on June 15, 1925, and that appeal was decided finally on January 27, 1930, by the appellate Court, which confirmed the trial Court's decree.2. Now, the events that led to this appeal arose in this way3. The present respondent filed his darkhast No. 70 of 1924 against the appellants on January 16, 1924, and therein he applied for the execution of the whole of the decree obtained by him, i. e., to recover Rs. 5,550 with interest and costs. After this da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR267
Macmillan, J.1. On November 8, 1930, the Income-tax Officer for District V, Calcutta, made an assessment order on Burn & Co., an unregistered firm carrying on business in Calcutta, assessing them to income-tax and super-tax for the year 1927-28, under Section 23 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The main question in the present appeal, in which the individual partners of Burn & Co. are the appellants, is whether it was competent to make this assessment on the firm after the expiry on March 31, 1928, of the year in respect of which the assessment was made.2. The explanation of the delay in making the assessment is as follows. It appears that towards the end of the year 1926-27 the partners of the registered firm of Martin & Co., which also carried on business in Calcutta, purchased the business and assets of Burn & Co. The purchase was effected not by or on behalf of the firm of Martin & Co., but by the partners of that firm as individuals who contributed funds for the purpose pro...
Tag this Judgment!