Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-15-1928
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-13-1928
Reported in : AIR1930Cal547
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we are concerned with the ascertainment of the amounts for which Mr. Galstaun is entitled to proof in the insolvency of one Kanko Mohan Mullick. I propose that we should give our decision upon the questions of law which are involved and what is said with reference to the particular figures and amounts will be subjected to correction hereafter on the representation of the parties. The intention is that at the conclusion of this judgment the parties should have an opportunity of checking whether the figures mentioned in it are correct in accordance with the true working out of the principle which is to be applied. Now it appears that the insolvent Kanto Mohan Mullick and four of his brothers-entered into a transaction represented by a mortgage deed dated 28th June 1903. It appears that at this time a certain will was being propounded by the persons named as executors therein as the true will of their uncle, one Gopal Lal Seal, and although the contents and eff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-31-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Cal657
Costello, J.1. This is a petition by Margaret Barnard praying for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent George Henry Barnard on the ground of his adultery with a woman unknown on 17th November 1927. The petitioner was married to the respondent on 18fch October 1917 according to the rights of the Christian Church at the Wesleyan Churoh at Jhansi. At the time of the marriage the respondent was domiciled in England and before her marriage the petitioner was also domiciled in England and after the marriage they retained their English domicile. It was duly averred in the petition that the respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition was domiciled in England. It may therefore be taken that when this petition was filed both the parties to the marriage were domiciled in England. Both the parties to the marriage profess the Christian religion. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner that after her marriage she and the respondent lived and cohabited together firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-02-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom275; (1928)30BOMLR661
Fawcett, J.1. The applicants are plaintiffs in a suit that was filed against the opponents in the Small Causes Court of Bombay for a sum of Rs. 1,725, being the alleged balance due at the foot of an account in regard to certain contracts for the sale and purchase of ground nut seeds. The opponents in their written statement, in addition to objecting to the plaintiffs' claim on its merits, took the point that the suit should be stayed, and the matters in dispute be referred to the arbitration of the Grain Merchants Association, as the parties were members of that Association, and the contracts in dispute contained a provision that they were executed according to the Rules of the Grain Merchants Association, by which each party was bound. Evidence was given to support this last contention, and the learned Judge decided that arbitration was compulsory under a certain rule passed by the Managing Committee of the Association. He, therefore, stayed the suit to enable the parties to comply wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1928
Reported in : AIR1929Mad353
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Co. Ltd., against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the company, and for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the company by reason of their several acts of fraud and. misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April 1922 and the final judgment on 4th April 1924. Defendant 1 had not appealed, but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various matters fall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1928
Reported in : 115Ind.Cas.486
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Company, Limited, against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March, 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the Company, for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the Company by reason of their several acts of fraud and misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April, 1922, and the final judgment on 4th April, 1924 Defendant No. 1 has not appealed but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The Company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-10-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom308; (1928)30BOMLR668
Fawcett, J.1. This application arises out of the judgment of this Court passed on September 2, 1926. In that judgment it was held that the document sued upon required registration in view of the Privy Council decision in Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh : (1926)28BOMLR1372 That decision was contrary to the general view of the law that had been previously held in India, and at the time of the hearing' of the appeal, there was a possibility that the Legislature might intervene and pass an Act validating documents that had not been registered on account of the previous view of the law. That possibility was referred to in my judgment, but I remarked that it could not affect the decision of the present case, and accordingly held that the objection was a good one, sufficient to require the plaintiff's suit to be dismissed as it had been in the trial Court. On the other hand, I said 29 Bom. L.E. 272):p>In view of the possibility I have just mentioned, I think it is right that we should give oar dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom516; (1928)30BOMLR1300
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This suit is brought on three hundis running in the following form :-Fifty-six days after date I promise to pay Seth Chimandas Fatehchand or order the sum of Rs. 600 only for value received in cash. G.V. Athale, Managing Proprietor, Gangadhar & B. Friends, Sandhurst Road, Bombay No. 4.Chimandas Fatehchand, the payee, are the plaintiffs, G.V. Athale is the first defendant, Gangadhar & B. Friends are the second defendants. The appellant before us is one S.K. Padhye, and the writ in this case was served on him as a partner the alleged firm of the second defendants. He appeared under protest, and subsequently obtained unconditional leave to B. defend, and put in a written statement making a general defence to the suit and putting the plaintiffs to strict proof on all points.2. At the trial, issues were raised as to whether Padhye was a partner with defendants No. 2, and whether he held himself out as a partner in the second defendant firm. The learned Judge ans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-12-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom448; (1928)30BOMLR1172; 113Ind.Cas.593
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This income-tax reference arises on assessments for the financial years 1925-26 and 1926-27 of the Bombay Trust Corporation Limited (whom I will call 'the Bombay Company') as agent of the Hongkong Trust Corporation Limited (whom I will call 'the Hongkong Company'). Having regard to Section 3 and the definition of 'previous year' in Section 2(11) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, the profits assessed are alleged profits for the years ending March 31, 1925, and March 31, 1926, respectively.2. The Crown claims that the Bombay Company has a 'business connection' with the Hongkong Company and is accordingly the latter's agent within the meaning of Section 43 of the Act, and consequently be assessed in the name of that agent under Section 42. The Bombay Company disputes the alleged 'business connection' and says that in any event it is necessary, having regard to Section 40 of the Act, for the alleged agent to be in receipt on behalf of the Hongkong Company of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-19-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom421; (1928)30BOMLR970; 113Ind.Cas.511
Patkar, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought against the G.I.P. Railway in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur on March 10, 1925, and June 29, 1925, respectively. On July 1, 1925, the G.I.P. Railway became a state managed railway, and in September 1925, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge returned the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, on the ground that the Secretary of State for India in Council being joined as a party to the suits, he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The plaints were presented to the District Court and numbered as Suits Nos. 4 and 11 of 1925.2. The learned District Judge raised a preliminary issue 'whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code,' and found on the issue in the affirmative and rejected the plaints.3. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been properly construed, that the suits were already instituted ...
Tag this Judgment!