Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-22-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Cal639
ORDERSinha, J. 1. This is an application for an amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff instituted this suit on 26-5-1952 against the defendant. It is alleged in the plaint, as filed, that on or about 30-3-1949, it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant by means of letters exchanged between the parties that the plaintiff would sell and the defendant would purchase 100 tons of imported continental paper upon certain terms specified in the plaint. It is then stated that the plaintiff had supplied the defendant and the defendant had accepted 40 tons 756 lbs. of the contracted goods, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 80,663/8/3 became due and payable, out of which the plaintiff had been paid a sum of Rs. 58,943/14/3 on or about 14-11-1949, but the defendant had failed and neglected to pay the balance. In the alternative the plaintiff stated that he had supplied the said goods to the defendant not intending to do so gratuitously and that the defendant was liable to compens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-08-1953
Reported in : AIR1954P& H178
Bhandari, C.J.1. The question which falls to be determined in the present case is whether it is within the competence-of a State Government to transfer a corruption, case from one Special Judge to another Special Judge.2. The petitioners in this case are Mr. S. Y. Krishnaswamy, I. C. S., former Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. C. S. D. Swamy. former Director of Fertilizers in the Said Ministry, and six employees of Messrs. Nanavati and Company Limited. It is alleged that Mr. Krishna-swamy and Mr. Swamy entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other petitioners to give higher prices to the Company for the purchase of Sulphate of Ammonia and obtained illegal gratifications for themselves. They were prosecuted under Sections 120B, 161 and 165, Penal Code, and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.3. On 24-1-1953 the Delhi Police Establishment presented two challans against the petitioners in the Court of S. Gurdev Singh, one of the Special Judges appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-19-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Cal636,57CWN692
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and is directed against a judgment of Chunder J., dated 28-3-1952.2. The facts are that In September, 1949, the plaintiffs respondents initiated proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act alleging that they required the disputed premises for their own use. The proceedings were numbered as Suit No, 10455 of 1949. The suit was decreed on contest by Mr. B.P. Bakshi, learned Judge, 4th Bench, his decision being dated 28-8-1949. Against that judgment an appeal was taken by the defendant to the Special Bench. The Special Bench dismissed the appeal on 23-3-1951. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition purporting to be under Section 115, Civil P. C. and Article 227 of theConstitution. A Rule was issued being Civil Rule No. 1437 of 1951. The Rule came up for hearing before Chunder J. who by his judgment dated 28-3-1952, discharged the Rule. Before the learned Judge two points appear to have been raised, namely, (1) whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-1953
Reported in : AIR1953SC357; (1954)56BOMLR21; (1953)IIMLJ215(SC); [1953]4SCR1028
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate under section 109(c), Civil Procedure Code, from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversing the judgment of Mr. Justice S. C. Shah in Civil Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1950 and restoring the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to register the appellants' trade mark. 2. The two questions that were canvassed before us and that fall for our determination are (1) whether the judgment of Mr. Justice Shah was subject to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court and (2) whether Mr. Justice Shah was right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Registrar in refusing registration of the appellants' mark. 3. The relevant facts shortly stated are these. The appellants are a limited liability company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having their registered office at Chidambaram, South Arcot District, in the Province of Madras and carrying on the business of manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-29-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad543; (1954)IMLJ206
(1) This is a court fee reference by the Master. R. M. Seshadri filed C. S. No. 541 of 1949 on the Original Side of this court for a declaration that the order of the defendant (State of Madras dated 7th August 1947 terminating his service as a member of the Indian Civil Service was 'ultra vires' its powers, illegal and void, and directing it to restore him to an office appropriate to his rank and seniority in the service, and for recovery of arrears of salary of a sum of Rs. 28884-13-0 and damages of a sum of one lakh rupees for terminating his service illegally and arbitrarily. On the plaint he paid a court fee of Rs. 935.The suit was dismissed by Panchapakesa Aiyar J. on 25th March 1952. On 20th August 1952 he preferred an Original Side appeal against the decree and judgment. He valued the memorandum of appeal at a sum of Rs. 1,44,385-13-0 and paid a court fee of Rs. 935 i.e. the same amount he paid on the plaint. Rule 1 of Or. II of the High I Court Pees Rules 1933 as amended by R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-23-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal369
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a battle over technicalities. 2. It is an application by the defendant for dismissal of the suit under Order 9, Rule 5, Civil P. C. The notice of motion was taken out by the defendant firm on 4-9-1953 and by special leave made returnable on 8-9-1953. The notice of motion seeks first for an order that the suit be dismissed and then asks that if the suit be not dismissed, the time for filing written statement be extended. 3. To appreciate the controversy the relevant facts should be set forth. 4. It is a suit for libel where the plaintiff claims Rupees One Lakh as damages against the defendant firm. It was instituted on 7-9-1950. The writ of summons was issued on 15-9-1950 for service on the defendant. The returnable date of the writ of summons was 29-11-1950. Between 18-9-1950 and 25-6-1951, a period of about nine months, the plaintiff took no steps to have the summons served and he did not attend the Sheriff's office for such service. The Sheriff, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-29-1953
Reported in : AIR1953SC375; 20(1954)CLT1(SC); [1954]1SCR1
Mukherjea, J.1. The six appeals arise out of as many applications, presented to the High Court of Orissa, under article 226 of the Constitution, by the properties of certain permanently settled estates within the State of Orissa, challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation known as the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and praying for mandatory writs against the State Government restraining them from enforcing the provisions of the Acts so far as the estates owned by the petitioners are concerned. 2. The impugned Act was introduced in the Orissa State Legislature on the 17th of January, 1950 and was passed by it on the 28th September, 1951. It was reserved by the State Governor for consideration of the President and the President gave his assent on 23rd January, 1952. The Act thus receives the protection of articles 31(4) and 31A of the Constitution though it was not and could not be included in the list of statutes enumerated in the nin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-28-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal549
Braja Kanta Guha, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of damages. The appeal is being contested by the substituted respondents who purchased the disputed property during the pendency of the appeal in this Court.The original suit was filed before the Munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore on 23-2-48. The suit was decreed on contest on 28-5-51 and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit land within 90 days. Mesne profits were also decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. There was an appeal by the defendant before the District Judge and this appeal was heard by a Subordinate Judge, Alipore who dismissed the same on 21-4-52. Thereupon the present appeal was preferred by the defendant before this Court on 16-5-52.2. The plaintiffs' case is briefly that the defendant is a thika monthly tenant whose tenancy has been determined by notice. The notice was purported to have been served on 2-1-48 requiring the defendant to vacate the premises on the expiry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad78; (1953)2MLJ457
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is an advocate of the Travancore-Cochin High Court. He seeks to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. The only question in this application is whether he is liable to pay the stamp duty under item 25 of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Madras which runs as follows :'Entry as an Advocate, Vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court under the Indian Bar Council Act, 1926, or in exercise of powers conferred on such Court by Letters Patent or by the Legal Practitioners Act, 1884--(a) in the case of an Advocateor vakil : Six hundred and twenty-fiverupeesin the case of an attorney : Threehundred and twenty-fiverupees, eight annas.' There is an exemption to this provision which runs as follows :'Entry of an advocate, vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court, when he has previously been enrolled in a High Court.' Item 25 of the Act as amended corresponds to item 30 of the main Act.2. The petitioner contends that as he had been previously ...
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!