Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal158
Bartley, J1. This is an application under Section 520, Criminal P.C., made by the petitioner in reference to an order passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. The facts underlying the application are that the petitioner, a pensioner, made over his pension papers to the opposite party in connexion with negotiations for a loan to be made to him by the opposite party. The grant of the loan was followed by criminal proceedings against the petitioner who was alleged to have cheated his creditor in connexion with the advance of the money lent. These criminal proceedings ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner, but the pension papers which had been produced by the creditor as evidence in the criminal case appeared to have remained up to the present day in the custody of the Court. The petitioner applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 517 of the Code to have the papers returned to him. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that the only order he could...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1939All194
Bennet, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants, The Anjuman Islamia of Bareilly, against the decree in, first appeal No. 146 of 1931 of the learned District Judge in Bareilly in which he allowed part of the appeal of the plaintiff, one Pt. Radhe Lal. The suit of the plaintiff asked for a declaration that the plaintiff was owner of a staircase along with its walls and that the staircase had no concern, with the mosque and that the defendants be absolutely restrained from passing to the mosque through the staircase. This relief was granted by the lower Court and also the third relief that the defendants should roof the staircase of the plaintiff. Some further question has been raised in this appeal in regard to the decree of the lower Court about electric fittings and costs of First Appeal No. 145 of the defendants in, the Court below but no second appeal has been taken against that decree and there-fore we cannot deal with that matter as its is not before us.2. The his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad299
Yaradachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for accounts between principal and agent. The final decree of the trial Court directed the defendant to pay a substantial amount to the plaintiff as a result of the taking of the account. On appeal by the defendant, the lower Appellate Court set aside that decree and directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant a sum of Rs. 3780 odd and also pay the defendant's costs including the court-fee payable to Government on the memorandum of appeal to the lower Court. It is against this latter decree that the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The defendant was adjudged an insolvent during the pendency of the appeal in the lower Court and the Official Receiver has continued the proceedings as representing the defendant's estate.2. According to the plaint, the claim for account arose out of an agency constituted in March 1911 by a power of attorney marked Ex. A. But in substance the agency goes back to an earlier date. During th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal829
1. (28th June 1938).- This appeal arises out of a suit for damages : (a) for malicious prosecution, and (b) for wrongful dismissal from service. There are nine defendants to the suit. Defendant 1 is the Chatra Serampore Co-operative Credit Society, a Society established under the Co-operative Societies Act and carrying on banking business. The plaintiff Becharam was the Manager of the Society. He was dismissed on the 29th May 1929. Defendant 2 Bhupendra is a Government Inspector of Co-operative Societies. He was appointed Manager of the Society with the consent of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for 6 months in the place of the plaintiff, and discharged his duties as such in addition to his own duties as Inspector. Defendants 3 to 9 were some of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society at the material time. The claim for damages for malicious prosecution is against all the defendants, and the other claim is against defendant 1, hereafter to be called the Society. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Maugham: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General of Alberta from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (Duff C.J., Cannon, Crocket, Davis, Kerwin and Hudson JJ.) dated 4th March 1938 on a reference to them by the Governor-General of Canada under S. 55, Supreme Court Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, c. 35). The subject of the reference and of this appeal is the power of the Legislature of the Province of Alberta to enact three Bills which had been presented to the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta for assent on 5th October 1937, and reserved by him for the signification of the Governor-General's pleasure. By order in Council dated 2nd November 1937 the Governor-General referred the following questions to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration : 1. Is Bill No. 1, entitled ' an Act respecting the Taxation of Banks' or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent intra vires of the Legislature of the Province of Albe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal818
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. The Barisal Loan Company obtained a decree for Rs. 4653 odd against the father of defendant 5 on 9th June 1929. They put this decree into execution on 28th December 1929. Defendants 1 to 4 purchased this decree during the pendency of this execution case and were substituted in place of the Company on 20th February 1930. Thereafter the execution case was struck off on 9th July 1930. On 28th November 1930, the decree was put into execution again by the assignees. On 10th December 1930, the judgment-debtor executed a trust deed (Ex. 12) by which he appointed the plain-tiff a trustee for the payment of his debts. The material portion of this document is as follows:I execute this trust deed to the following effect: for want of good management my estate is not being properly managed and protected; therefore being involved in debt and being unable to satisfy the same, on 17th Sraban 1322 last I appointed Babu Ganesh Chandra Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal713
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P.C. by two men, Profulla Kumar Mukherjee and J. E. Skipp. The case is that petitioner 1 is a respectable gentleman living at Hari Ghose's Street and petitioner 2 is a respectable European merchant residing in No. 5 Kyd Street in Calcutta, that on Saturday, 18th December 1937, at about 1.30 P. M. petitioner 1 while on his way to the races, stopped in front of the premises of petitioner 2 and gave him a lift in the car as they were both going to the races. It is alleged by the prosecution that while petitioner 1 was waiting in the car in Kyd Street and petitioner 2 had just taken his seat, witness Bamzan approached the petitioners and gave them a marked ten-rupee note as his betting money and went away. Then as the car was proceeding towards Chowrin-ghee along Kyd Street, the Police Officer, prosecution witness 1, put his hackney carriage across the road and stopped the car. Then he along with other men got do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad889; (1938)2MLJ461
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach. C.J.1. The suit which has given rise to this reference was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry by the Imperial Bank of India, the 1st respondent. The bank sued to enforce specific performance of an agreement entered into by the 2nd and 3rd respondents with the bank to secure repayment of moneys advanced to them. The 2nd respondent is the father of the 3rd respondent. They and the appellants, who are the minor sons of the 3rd respondent, constitute an undivided family. In 1923 the 2nd and 3rd respondents started a business, and for this purpose opened an account with the bank. On the 14th August, 1923, in pursuance of an arrangement with the bank, which was willing to finance them, they executed a document in the following terms:In consideration of the Imperial Bank of India advancing us sums of money from time to time we hereby undertake not to alienate or in any way transfer or mortgage any of our immovable property as per schedul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad785; (1938)2MLJ189
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is whether a person who has lent money on a promissory note can sue to recover the debt apart from the note when the note embodies the terms of the contract with the borrower but is inadmissible in evidence owing to a defect in the stamping. In England the right to sue on the original consideration is recognised, and the same principle has been applied by some Judges in India, but Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of the contract except the document itself, or secondary evidence where secondary evidence is admissible and other Judges have held that this section prohibits a suit on the original consideration. This Court, except in two cases to which I shall in due course refer, has held that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is a bar to a suit on the debt when the loan and the instrument are contemporaneous. Before turning to ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!