Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All707; 92Ind.Cas.63
Lindsay, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of a suit for redemption brought by Alice Georgina Skinner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. This lady died after the decision in the Court below and is now represented by her executor, Mr. J.R.R. Skinner.2. The suit was filed on the 11th May, 1920 and the mortgage of which, redemption was sought was executed by the plaintiff's father, Thomas Skinner, on the 1st September, 1863, to secure a loan of Bs. 50,000 which he took from a firm of money-lenders, Lakshmi Chand and Gobind Das who were popularly known as the Seths of Muttra. Since the date of the mortgage, the mortgaged property has passed into the hands of many persons the result being that the plaintiff found it necessary to implead over 80 defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge has passed a preliminary decree for redemption, dated the 31st January, 1923, by which he directs the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 1,09,641-118.3. The suit was not decreed in full, for the Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex parte Endo - 323 U.S. 283 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) Ex parte Mitsuye Endo No. 70 Argued October 12, 1944 Decided December 18, 1944 323 U.S. 283 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The War Relocation Authority, whose power over persons evacuated from military areas derives from Executive Order No. 9066, which was ratified and confirmed by the Act of March 21, 1942, was without authority, express or implied, to subject to its leave procedure a concededly loyal and law-abiding citizen of the United States. P. 323 U. S. 297 . 2. Wartime measures are to be interpreted as intending the greatest possible accommodation between the Constitutional liberties of the citizen and the exigencies of war. P. 323 U. S. 300 . 3. The sole purpose of the Act of March 21, 1942, and Executive Orders Nos. 9066 and 9102 was the protection of the war effort against espionage and sabotage. P. 323 U. S. 300 . 4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ludecke v. Watkins - 335 U.S. 160 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) Ludecke v. Watkins No. 723 Argued May 3-4, 1948 Decided June 21, 1948 335 U.S. 160 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under authority of the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, which empowers the President, whenever there is a "declared war" between the United States and any foreign country, to provide for the removal of alien enemies from the United States, the President, on July 14, 1945, directed the removal of all alien enemies "deemed by the Attorney General to be dangerous" to the public safety. The Attorney General, on January 18, 1946, ordered removal of petitioner, a German national, from the United States. Challenging the validity of the removal order, petitioner instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the Federal District Court to secure his release from detention under the order. Held: 1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant124; AIR1951Mys124
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by judgment-debtor 7 against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge. Bangalore, con-firming that of the Munsiff, Ramanagaram, rejecting an application made by him under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts leading up to the petition are: four items of immovable property were brought to sale by the decree-holders in execution of their mortgage decree. The petitioner who was an alienee of item l was defendant 7 in the case. All the four items were ordered to be sold on 17-5 1949. Before the sale the petitioner filed an application and obtained an order that items 2 to 4 of the mortgaged properties might be sold in the first instance and for the balance of the decree amount, if any, item l in which he was interested might then be sold. Accordingly on the same day items 2 to 4 were sold in the first instance for Rs. 320 in the aggregate and item 1 was sold later for Rs. 410. The amount mentioned in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant105; AIR1953Mys105
1. The plaintiffs brought their suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chitaldrug for redemption and possession of the plaint schedule house and for mesne profits. Their case was that the plaintiffs and Ismail Sab, the deceased father of plaintiffs 1 to 3, executed in favour of the defendant a deed of mortgage by conditional sale dated 22-10-1936 for Rs. 4,000/-. It was stipulated therein that II the plaintiffs paid 'Rs. 4,000/- within the time fixed in it the defendant should reconvey the property to them; that though they had arranged for the payment and tendered the amount within time, the defendant had deliberately evaded to receive it.1a. The defendant denied that the deed of 22-10-1936 was in the nature of a mortgage by conditional sale. It was really a deed' of sale with a condition for reconveyance and as the plaintiffs had not paid or tendered the amount in time as stipulated therein they were not entitled to any relief. The Subordinate Judge held that the deed in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant105; AIR1952Mys105
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The Plaintiff, whose suit for a declaration, that a sale held by the Revenue authorities of the plaint schedule properties was a nullity, has been dismissed, has preferred this appeal. Her case is, that out of the four items set out in the plaint schedule, she bought item 4 and other properties from their previous owner one Subbarama Rao on 29-11-1935 subject to payment of a debt of Rs. 2,000/- due by the latter. In order to discharge that debt, she and her husband who is, however, said to have no interest in those properties mortgaged them without possession in favour of defendant 1 which is a Co-operative Society. Subsequently, some payments were made towards that debt and to recover the balance defendant 1 instituted proceedings before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and obtained a decree in R. C. S. Dispute No. 7/40-41 for Rs. 2,844/-. The said decree was put in execution before the Revenue authorities and the plaint schedule items were brought to sale....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant114; AIR1954Mys114; ILR1953KAR662
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The petitioner in these two cases is the same. He sued the respondent for recovery of amounts due under two on demand promissory notes, and, in the course of one of the suits, applied for attachment before judgment of money due to the defendant under a bill tendered to the Executive Engineer, Buildings Division, Bangalore. No money, however, was received in Court or even found to be actually payable. The suits ended in decrees against the defendant and the application filed by the defendant for payment of compensation on account of the attachment being wrongful was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the defendant, the decrees of the trial Court as regards the amounts payable under the pronotes were confirmed, but compensation of Rs. 250/- was allowed to the defendant on the view that the attachment was obtained on insufficient grounds. The learned Judge also directed the plaintiff to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on the ground that he, as a money-lender, has not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant121; AIR1955Mys121
Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. In these two petitions the respective petitioners occupying shops situated in the Devaraja Market, Mysore City, as tenants of respondent 1, Mysore City Municipality, have prayed that Section 20 of Act 30 of 1951 (the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951) be declared void and [or the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the notification of respondent 2, i.e., the State Government, bearing No. 797 dated 2-11-1951 exempting houses owned by any local authority or muzrai institution from all the provisions of the Act. 2. It may be mentioned that Section 20 of the Act authorises the State Government by notification in the Mysore Gazette to exempt any house or class of houses from all or any of the provisions of the Act and that the notification referred to above has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20.3. The petitioners' case is that they have been tenants in occupation of the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant75; AIR1957Mys75; 1957CriLJ1150; (1957)35MysLJ115
ORDER1. The petitioner was convicted or an offence punishable under Section 56 (g) of the Mysore Police Act. The learned Magistrate instead of sentencing him directed him 'to execute a bond in a sum of Rupees fifty to appear and receive sentence during a period of three months and meanwhile to obey the laws which are framed for the benefit of accused himself and the public.'The office raised a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that an appeal lay against the conviction.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner urges that the case was tried summarily, that an offence under Section 56 (g) of the Mysore Police Act is punishable only with a maximum fir.e of Rs. 50/-and that under Section 414 of the Code of Criminal Pro-eedure, no appeal lies against a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 200/-. The test under Section 414 or the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, however is not the punishment in respect of an offence but the sentence actually...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant126; AIR1958Mys126; ILR1957KAR333; (1958)36MysLJ57
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Mangalore, South Kanara. His suit has been dismissed and he has come up in revision to this Court. This revision petition raises some interesting questions of law. In order to properly appreciate the questions of law that arise for consideration it is necessary to state the facts of the case briefly.2. In the Town of Mangalore a Chit Fund was being run which was known as the New Kerala Daily Auction Chit Fund which will be hereinafter called the 'Fund'. The defendant was a member of the said 'Fund'. He executed a demand promissory note on 28-1-1952 in favour of the 'Fund' for a sum of Rs. 500/- security for the due payment of the future instalments of the chit purchased by him. The practice of this 'Fund' seems to have been that whenever a member was a successful bidder in any of the chit auctions, he will have to execute a pro-note as security for the payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!