Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad801; (1930)59MLJ634
Anantakriskna Aiyar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raised two important questions of law, one turning on the construction to be placed upon Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, and the other on Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order 34, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.2. The first question has been answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant by a Full Bench of this Court at an earlier stage of this Letters Patent Appeal.3. The only other question that remains for decision is whether the plaintiff, on the facts stated in the Order of Reference, is entitled to redeem the 1st defendant's mortgage. The plaintiff was a money decree-holder against the judgment-debtor, the mortgagor, and in execution of his money-decree he attached the mortgaged properties. Pending the attachment, the 1st defendant, the mortgagee, filed a suit to recover the money due upon his mortgage but he failed to make the plaintiff who was then the attaching decree-holder a par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(Mad)201; [1980]126ITR615(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These are two writ petitions with a common prayer for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Asst. Controller, the first respondent, dated January 25, 1975, refusing to revise the order, dated January 27, 1970, and also to direct the Asst. Controller by a mandamus to finally communicate to the WTO concerned that there would be nil assessment as for as the petitioner's share in the 'controlled company' is concerned and give such other directions or orders as may be fit and proper. There was an estate duty assessment consequent on the death of Sri Anantharamakrishnan, a well-known industrialist of this part of the country. He died intestate in Madras on April 18, 1964, leaving behind him his widow by name Valli, his two sons by name Sivasailam and Krishnamoorthy and two daughters, Kalyani and Seetha. The present writ petitions have been filed by the husband and power-of-attorney agent of Kalyani, the first daughter. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 75Ind.Cas.504; (1924)46MLJ117
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against an order passed by one of us sitting as a single Judge, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. That order confirmed the order of the lower Court and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed in this Court. The present petitioner, who was the petitioner in the Revision Petition has applied to us to grant him leave to appeal to the Privy Council.2. A preliminary objection is taken to this application on the ground that Section 111, C.P.C. bars any such application. S. in says notwithstanding anything contained in Section 109 no appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council among other things (a) from the decree or order of one Judge of a High Court established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. This is manifestly an application for an appeal from such an order. It is difficult to see how the petitioner can escape the obstacle placed in his way by this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1924Mad399
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, against an order passed by one of as, sitting as a single Judge, under Section 116 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. That order confirmed the order of the lower Court and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed in this Court. The present petitioner, who was the petitioner in the Revision Petition has applied to us to grant him leave to appeal to the Privy Council.2. A preliminary objection is taken to this application, on the ground that Section 111, Civil Procedure Code, bars any such application. Section 111 says, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 109, no appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council, among other things, from the decree or order of one Judge of a High Court established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. This is manifestly an application for an appeal from such an order. It is difficult to see bow the petitioner can escape the obstacle p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1925)ILR68Mad331
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The question that comes up for our decision in appeal is whether vakils have a right of audience in the Insolvency Court at the Presidency Town of Madras. We have heard fall arguments from Mr. G. Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar on behalf of the vakils and from Mr. Grant and Mr. Sidney Smith for the advocates. The whole question has been dealt with in. their arguments exhaustively and in every aspect.2. Vakils appear and plead on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras, notwithstanding that the Charter of 1800 authorized only three classes of practitioners, namely, (1) bona fide practitioners of the law in the old Court of the recorder, which was thereby abolished; (2) barristers-at-law in England or Ireland; and (3) attorneys or solicitors admitted in one of the Courts at Westminster or otherwise capable of acting as well in the character of advocates as of attorneys, and that the Charter went on todeclare that no other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal173
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 12th of May 1913 Mr. Lionel Hewitt Colson, Special Superintendent, Intelligence Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Indian Police Service, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Additional Magistrate at Barisal, alleging that one Girindra Mohan Das and 43 others had been guilty of offences under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, Mr. Nelson, examined the complainant on oath, recorded his deposition, and directed certain warrants to issue.2. On the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th and 30th days of May, articles, it is said, containing comments on the criminal proceeding initiated by this complaint, described as the Barisal Conspiracy Case, were published in a newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika.3. The Government of Bengal, having been advised that the publication of these articles, and each of them, and in particular the leading article of the 22nd May, 1913, constituted serious contempt of Court, the Advocate-General,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal257
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghose was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the fourth Criminal Sessions of this year by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302. On the 22nd August an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:Certificate of the Advocate-General of Bengal under cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas131(Cal)
Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 29, 1973, directing, inter alia, the respondents Pramotha Nath Mukherjee and Monoranjan Mukherjee to be added as parties to the Company Petition No. 398 of 1972 and granting leave to the said respondents to continue the said company petition and all proceedings thereunder, and further directing the original petitioner, Dilip Kumar Ganguli of the said Company Petition No. 398 of 1972, to be transposed to the category of respondents and all consequential amendments to be carried out in the cause title of the said company petition.2. The said company petition was filed on October 3, 1972, by the original petitioner, Dilip Kumar Ganguli, who was at all material times and still now is a shareholder of the Jalpaiguri Cinema Company Ltd., an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.3. The company was incorporated under the Indian Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1944Cal433
ORDERDas, J.1. On 8th March 1943 a petition was presented before me by Mr. Barwell on behalf of one Clarice Grace Raha described therein as a single woman and a medical practitioner residing at No. 32/13A, Beadon Street in the town of Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. By the petition the applicant prays for an Order appointing her the guardian of the persons of two minors Lovejoy Patell and Saleem Patell, alternatively for an Order giving her the custody of them till they shall respectively attain the age of 21 years and for certain other incidental reliefs. On Mr. Barwell's application made at the time of the presentation of this petition, I granted an ad interim injunction in terms of prayer (6) of the petition restraining Yacoob Patell and Zainab Patell the father and mother respectively of the minors from removing the minors from their present residence at No. 11/1, Circus Avenue, Calcutta and fixed 15th March 1943 for the hearing of the application and directed notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal494
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that plaintiff is the adopted son of one Ramprotap Udhani and as such entitled to his estate. There is also the prayers for possession, for injunction, damages and accounts. The defendants impleaded are, Dhapu Debia daughter of Ramprotap and her husband Chandanmul Jajodia. The allegations made are that Munia Debi. widow of Ramprotap, on 25-9-1950 adopted the plaintiff as a son of Ramprotap. It is alleged that Munia Debi had authority to adopt though it is not stated when such authority was given and whether it was oral or in writing. The. plaintiff is the grandson of Ramprotap by his daughter Rukmini Debi. Rukmini died in December 1949 prior to the adoption. It is pleaded that 'according to the custom and practice prevailing amongst the Agarwal Community to which the parties belong, a daughter's son can be validly given and taken in adoption.' Munia Debi, Ramprotap's widow died on 5-3-1956. On Ramprotap's death, Munia along with her s...
Tag this Judgment!