Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-1947
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR534
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on July 19, 1944.2. On June 14, 1944, the High Court, on the application of the respondents, issued a rule nisi calling upon the appellant to show cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him 'as to by what authority he is exercising and performing or claiming to exercise or perform the powers and duties which may be performed or exercised by the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality.' By the said Order of July 19, 1944, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi. On December 14, 1944, the High Court ordered that the appellant's appeal to His Majesty in Council against the said Order of July 19, 1944, be admitted.3. The facts leading to the issue of the said orders of the High Court are simple. On June 9, 1944, His Excellency the Governor of Bengal, purporting to act under the powers conferred on him by Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-15-1947
Reported in : (1947)2MLJ263
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. These two letters Patent Appeals have been referred to a Full Bench; each arises out of a land suit instituted, under the provisions of Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in the Court of the sub-Collector of Narasapatam division, district of Vizagapatam, by the receiver of an estate known as Kota Uratla. The defendants are the tenants; the suits relate to the same land, but in respect of different faslis ; the claims made were for rent and, in one case, for sale of, and in the other, for creation of a charge upon, the holding, to recover the rent. It is common ground that, formerly, the lands were ryoti lands, but, according to the plaintiff, they have been converted into private, or home farm lands, which is denied by the defendants. The suits and proceedings leading to the present appeals have been heard together and there was one judgment in each point. The reference of the appeals to a Full Bench was made by reason of the conflict betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-24-1947
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR709
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated October 29, 1946, whereby he ordered that the respondent, i.e. the appellant in this Court, do pay into Court a fine of rupees one hundred for the contempt of this; Hon'ble Court committed by him in not obeying an interim order made on September 28, 1946, in having, in contravention of the said order, ordered and directed the Government representative Ramkrishna Dinanath Shirsat to make an inventory of the furniture and other articles in flat No. 13 of the second floor of the building called 'Rupayatan' situated at 69 Marine Drive, Bombay, and to lock up the flat by putting a lock upon the outer door of the said flat and 'driving out the people who might be in possession thereof.' It is further ordered that the respondent should pay to the petitioner his costs of the rule nisi and of the order as between attorney and client.2. That order was made upon a rule nisi issued by the learned Judge on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-1947
Reported in : AIR1948Bom272; (1948)50BOMLR49
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellants are a joint stock company and they filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the defendants who were the plaintiffs' managing agents for a very long time, their agency having been terminated on November 21, 1940. In the suit various reliefs were claimed against the defendants. The one with which we are concerned related to certain lands at Jalgaon which stood in the name of the defendants and which the plaintiffs claimed to be of their ownership, having; been acquired according to them by the defendants as plaintiffs' agents and with the funds belonging to the plaintiffs. In respect of these lands the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they belonged to and were the property of the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no beneficial interest therein and also they asked for an order against the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!