Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad741
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This criminal revision case has been filed against the order of discharge made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cheyyar In C. C. No. 493 of 1951 and which was refused to be interfered with by the District Magistrate of Vellore in C. R. P. No. 5 of 1952.2. The facts are: C. C. No. 1647 of 1951 was filed before the Sub-Magistrate, Polur, for offences under Sections 324 and 323, Penal Code, by Ayesha Bee, wife of Kasim Saheb, Chinnapushpagirt village, Polur Taluk, against Peerkhan sahib, Pathima Bee and Chote Bee, all residing in Chinnapushpagiri village, Polur Taluk. It is unnecessary for us to go into the details of that case. So far as the present case is concerned, what happened was this. On this Ayesha Bee, the complainant, being examined as a prosecution witness, the accused who were defended by Mr. V. M. Sundaresa Aiyar, Advocate, Vellore put questions to this witness containing 'per se' defamatory imputations to the following effects viz.,(a) that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1953
Reported in : (1953)2MLJ28
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupathur, in C.C. No. 326 of 1951 which was confirmed by the District Magistrate of North Arcot in G.R.P. No. 15 of 1952.2. The facts are : A complaint was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tirupathur by one Dowlath against the District Forest Officer, Tirupathur Mr. Dey and seven others. The complaint was that at about 11 a.m. on 6th August, 1951, when the complainant was grazing his goats in the private land of one Abdul Rahim Sahib, the District Forest Officer, who was accused 1 in the complaint directed the other accused, viz., accused 2 to 7 who were forest subordinates and the eighth accused, being a non-official, to take the animals to the pound and that some of the other accused accordingly drove away these animals and impounded them and that the District Forest Officer slapped the complianant on his cheek and kicked him resulting...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Cal695
Bose, J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs who are five share-holders of a company known as the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., for selves and on behalf of the other share-holders of the said company against the said Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and 8 other persons who are directors of the said company for a declaration that an ordinance known as The Iron & Steel Companies Amalgamation Ordinance 1952 (8 of 1952) and an Act replacing the said Ordinance being Act No. 79 of 1952 are void and inoperative and the Scheme of Amalgamation and merger contained therein is illegal and void and for an injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to or acting upon the said Scheme of amalgamation and merger, and for certain other reliefs (2) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant company being the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on or about 11-3-1948 and its business is, inter alia, the manufacture of iron and steel. The authorised c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-18-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal138
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This is a rule calling upon the respondents, to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandarnus should not be issued directing them to rescind, cancel or recall the Notification No. PH2209/2A-9/52 and the notice dated October 22, 1952, served upon the petitioner as mentioned in the petition or from forbearing to act thereon or from giving effect thereto.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of an institution called the 'Nature-Cure Clinic', situate at 43/1 Boy/bazar Street, Calcutta. It is stated in the petition that the object of the establishment is 'to treat patients suffering principally from rheumatism and deformity of limbs in Scientific methods by recourse to Bath and massaging and other methods available for Physic-therapeutics including treatment by light, heat, electricity and hydrotherapy and other allied methods.'3. He has another such institution at 5 Dhurrumtollah Street, but that is not the subject matter of this application.4. The institution, being a P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-23-1953
Reported in : AIR1953SC221; 1983(13)ELT1277(SC); [1953]4SCR987
Das, J.1. On the 28th November, 1947, the appellant Hooseni Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) submitted to the Sales Tax Officer, Akola, a Sales Tax return in Form IV for the first quarter. Notice in Form XI calling upon the assessee to produce evidence in support of the said return having been issued by the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee produced his account books. Not being satisfied by the inspection of the account books as to the correctness of the return and being of opinion that the taxable turnover exceeded rupees two lacs the Sales Tax Officer submitted the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Amravati, for assessment. On the 25th January, 1949, the Assistant Commissioner issued a fresh notice in Form XI under section 11 and fixed the case for disposal on the 5th February, 1949. After various adjournments and proceedings to which it is not necessary to refer, the hearing commenced on the 9th June, 1949, when an agent of the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad454
1. I need not recapitulate the facts which have been detailed in extenso in the judgment of my learned brother. But I wish to add only a few words on the question of law that has been elaborately argued at the Bar.2. The learned Judge's finding that the introduction of the labour scheme is within the purview of the powers of the municipality and is therefore not 'ultra vires' has not been questioned before us; nor is the opinion that the formalities as provided under the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, have been complied with, controverted. Thus the only question which arises for determination is whether the levy of the betterment tax is unreasonable and excessive and whether the fixation of the betterment tax was done in an arbitrary manner. In considering this question the basic question of the jurisdiction of the Court to enquire into the right of levy of betterment tax will have to be decided in the first instance. On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed upon Sections 24, 26...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-27-1953
Reported in : AIR1953SC198; (1953)IMLJ710(SC); [1953]4SCR1159
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment of an Appellate Bench of the Calcutta High Court, dated the 16th May, 1951, by which the learned Judges dismissed an appeal taken against an order, made by a single Judge on the Original Side of that Court, under clause 13 of the Letters Patent, on the preliminary ground that the appeal was not competent in law. 2. There is no dispute about the material facts of the case which lie within a short compass. On 7th August, 1947, a suit was filed by the respondent Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal, - being Title Suit No. 40 of 1947, - for recovery of possession of a large estate known as Baikunthapur Raj situated in that district, on the allegation that he, being the eldest son of late Prosanna Deb Raikot, the last holder of the estate, became entitled to the properties on the death of his father under a custom of the family which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal6
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. The central point of dispute in this application is attorney's right of rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C., where he has attached in execution of an order for costs made in his favour under Rule 48 of Chap. 38 of the Original Side Rules.2. The application is made by the decree-holder plaintiffs for an order that the Sheriff of Calcutta do pay out of the sum of Rs. 2371/4/- being the net amount lying in his hands out of the sale proceeds of two mud kothas at No. 59, Mechuabazar Street, Calcutta, belonging to the judgment-debtor after deduction therefrom the commission of the Accountant-General, payable to the plaintiffs' attorneys the costs of and incidental to the execution proceedings of the decrees dated 30-4-1948 and 4-4-1949, including those of levying their respective attachments and costs of all proceedings in connection with, the sale of the attached properties and also of costs of and incidental to this ap-plication and of costs to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-17-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad51; (1953)2MLJ325
1. The question that arises for decision in these petitions is the validity of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Ordinance 4 of 1952 which was modified by Ordinances 5 and 6 of 1952 and ultimately replaced by Act 14 of 1952.The petitioners are Mirasdars or land owners in the District of Tanjore and these are applications by them under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari to quash various orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer acting under the provisions of the Ordinance and Act aforesaid. W. P. No. 859 of 1952 and 78 of 1953 are against orders passed under Section 6 of the Act directing the reinstatement of tenants; W. P. No. 875 of 1952 in against refusal to pass an order in ejectment under Section 10 of the Act; W. P. No. 788 of 1952 is against an order awarding compensation under Section 12(4) of the Act; and W. P. Nos. 880 of 1952 and 6 of 1953 are against orders adjudicating disputes between landlords and tenants under Section 13 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-07-1953
Reported in : AIR1953All647
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by some of the opposite parties against whom an order was made by the learned Company Judge under Section 153 CO (8), Companies Act (VII of 1913). A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the applicant respondent 1 that no appeal lies.2. We have confined the arguments only to the preliminary objection and, it is, therefore, not necessary to go into the facts in any detail. Rani Revati Devi filed an application in this Court under Section 153(C), Companies Act in the matter of the Vishnu Pracap Sugar Works Limited, Khadda, District Deoria. She claimed that the company was a private Ltd. Co. with a capital of Rs. 8,50,000/-, divided in 1,700 fully paid up shares of Rs. 500/- each, and most of the shares of the company were held by members of the Fadrauna Rai family. She alleged that she was a share-holder and managing director of the company and that opposite parties 2 to 4 supported by opposite parties 6 1o 8, and committed various ac...
Tag this Judgment!