Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR408
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants, and the representatives of defendants who have died since the institution of the suit, against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1930, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, confirming the decree of the First Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur dated January 19, 1927.2. The question which falls for determination in the appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit to recover possession of certain lands from the defendants is barred by limitation.3. Both the Courts in India held that, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the suit was not barred.4. The result was that the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit, and the defendants' appeal there from to the High Court was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff's case is that-The entire village Piran Kalliar Sharif, pargana and tahsil Rurki, district Saharanpur, has been made waqf of generation after generation and womb after womb from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.977; (1934)66MLJ572
Bardswell, J.1. The Petitioners were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Tuticorin of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 325, Indian Penal Code. For each of the convictions under Sections 147 and 323 each of them was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and for each of the convictions under Sections 149 and 325, Indian Penal Code, each of them was sentenced to twelve months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences were made to run concurrently. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences under Sections 149 and 325 to six months rigorous imprisonment, the sentences of course to run concurrently with those under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. An order to execute bonds for keeping the peace was set aside and with this we have nothing to do. The only point that has to be considered is whether there can be separate convictions and separate sentences for an offence punishable under Section 147 and one punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad516
Beasley, C.J.1. These two appeals can be dealt with together. Although the facts are different, the main point for decision is common to both. The facts in each appeal may be briefly Stated. In O.S. No. 1 of 1931 the appellant brought a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, the respondent in this appeal. In that suit he asked for a declaration that he was wrongly dismissed, after he has been discharged on an invalid pension and for damages amounting to Rs. 9,900. His case was that he was discharged in October 1927 on an invalid pension and whilst a pension it was dismissed on February 1928 on the ground that he had been found guilty of misconduct before his retirement. The result of this was that his pension was withdrawn. His case was and is that under Rule 351 of the Civil Service Rules a pension can be withdrawn only if the pensioner bas been guilty of misconduct subsequent to his retirement. He next contends that his dismissal was contrary to the provision in Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All740; 153Ind.Cas.824
Niamatullah, J.1. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by any learned brother and desire to make a few observations on some of the questions of law which ha has so elaborately discussed in his judgment. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pointed out that the contract between the parties was entered into at Baroda, where payment was to be made, and that the defendant's place of business is also at Baroda. The plaintiff's reply to this objection is that the cause of action for the suit arose partly, at any rate, at every one of the places where, according to the terms of the contract between the parties, sleepers could be delivered and that Agra was one of the places where the contract made it permissible for the plaintiff to make delivery. The agreement does not mention in clear terms that the plaintiff could deliver at Agra; but the language employed in the various orders can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell - 290 U.S. 398 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell No. 370 Argued November 8, 9, 1933 Decided January 8, 1934 290 U.S. 398 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus 1. Emergency does not increase constitutional power, nor diminish constitutional restrictions. P. 290 U. S. 425 . 2. Emergency may, however, furnish occasion for exercise of power possessed. P. 290 U. S. 426 . 3. The clause providing that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts is not to be applied with literal exactness, like a mathematical formula, but is one of the broad clauses of the Constitution which require construction to fill out details. Pp. 290 U. S. 426 , 290 U. S. 428 . 4. The necessity of construction of the contract clause is not obviated by its association in the same section with other and more specific provisions which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morrison v. California - 291 U.S. 82 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934) Morrison v. California No. 487 Argued December 12, 13, 1933 Decided January 8, 1934 291 U.S. 82 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. The Alien Land Law of California forbids that an alien who is neither a citizen nor eligible for naturalization shall occupy land for agricultural purposes unless permitted by treaty, makes conspiracy of two or more persons to violate the prohibition a crime, and further provides that, where the state proves occupation or use of such land by any defendant, and the indictment alleges his alienage and ineligibility, the onus of proving his citizenship or eligibility shall devolve upon the defense. (1) Where two persons, charged with such a conspiracy, were convicted upon proof merely that one of them, alleged to be an alien Japanese, ineligible to citizenship, had gone upon agricultural land and used it under an agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom266; (1934)36BOMLR510
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Barlee. The point involved is one of limitation and the necessary facts and dates are these. On July 3, 1916, the respondent obtained a money decree against Shankar, the father of the appellant, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. Then on November 3, 1917, Shankar died. On March 26, 1919, the decree-holder made an application (No. 49 of 1919) under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the decree for execution to the Dhulia Court. This application was made in ignorance of the death of the judgment-debtor. Notice was issued and the bailiff then reported that Shankar was dead. On July 21, 1919, an oral application was made by the judgment-creditor's pleader for time to make enquiries as to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The application was granted and time was given for this purpose until August 15, 1919, but on that day the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All559; 150Ind.Cas.197
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application by a firm styled Sher Singh Joth Ram of Muzaffarnagar, under Section 66(3), Income-Tax Act, for an order requiring the Commissioner of Income-Tax to state a case and to refer certain questions for decision by this Court. The case relates to the assessment of Income-Tax on the applicants for the year 1930-31. The assessees made a return, in which they showed a loss of Rs. 2845-5-0 in 1929-30. They had to be assessed on the income of the preceding year, i.e., 1929 30, corresponding to the Sambat year 1986. A notice was issued under Section 23(2) requiring them to prove the correctness of their return. They produced certain accounts, and were assessed, on the 30th May 1930, on an income of Rs. 5,113. The order of assessment, recorded by the Income-tax Officer, shows that the account books for 1986 Section were before him, whether complete accounts had been produced or those for a particular branch of the assessees business were the only accounts th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom54; (1934)36BOMLR738; 152Ind.Cas.715
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that certain deeds of sale obtained by the defendants in respect of suit property being illegal, unauthorised, fraudulent and inoperative, are not binding on them, and that certain mortgages created by the plaintiffs' predecessor on the property in favour of the defendants' predecessors prior to the said sale-deeds were subsisting, and for an account of the said mortgages under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and that the mortgaged property be released from the mortgages and handed over to the plaintiffs' possession on payment of whatever might be found due on taking account.2. In order to understand the nature of the claim and defence, it is necessary to state the events and facts which have led to this litigation.3. The following pedigree of the mortgagor's family is necessary to understand the relationship of the plaintiffs and other persons related to them who figure in this suit: Bhailal Talsibh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal725,152Ind.Cas.914
Panckridge, J.1. The circumstances in which this Rule has been issued upon the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, and upon the Controller of Patents are as follows:The National Carbon Company, Incorporated, carry on business in New York, where they manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights and electric torches. They are the grantees of Indian Patent No. 17148 of 1930. In the specification, which was accepted on 8th December 1930, the invention is described as relating 'to dry cells and particularly to improved means of closing and sealing such cells.' I shall hereafter refer to the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, as 'the patentees.2. The Bright Star Battery Company are incorporated in the United States of America, and they also manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights. They offer their goods for sale in India through Messrs. Brough & Co., a firm carrying on business in Bombay. In December 1931, the patentees instituted a suit on the original ...
Tag this Judgment!