Privy Council Cases

Mohanlal Sewlal, a Firm Vs. Probodh Krishna Shome

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal576,54CWN733

ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order of the President of the Tribunal refusing the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the money lying before him through another advocate. The facts as they appear on record are very unfortunate.2. Mr. Shome was engaged by the petitioner as an advocate in connection with an acquisition case pending before the Collector. A certain sum was awarded by the Collector and a reference was filed through Mr. Shome. The reference succeeded in part. Thereafter it appears disputes arose between Mr. Shome and the petitioner as regards the payment of the sums due to Mr. Shome as his fees for the work done by him in the acquisition case and in the reference case. The petitioner engaged another lawyer to withdraw the compensation money awarded to him which was lying before the President of the Tribunal. Mr. Shome made an application for payment to him of the sums which he claimed on account of his fees and costs. This applicatio...

Zena Gladys Freemantle Vs. Herbert Charles Freemantle

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR641

Tendolkar, J.1. This suit is filed by a wife against her husband for a declaration that the defendant, not having been heard of since February 1937, into be deemed to be dead. When the plaint was presented to me in Chambers, as leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent had to be obtained, it appeared to me that it was doubtful whether such a suit could lie. Thereafter, counsel appeared before me and requested me to admit the plaint and have it numbered for the purpose of enabling me to determine in the suit whether such a suit lies before issuing any process. I acceded to that request and the matter has now come on before me for argument as to whether such a suit is competent.2. It appears that a similar suit was filed in this Court being suit No. 1998 of 1945 and in that suit a decree was passed by my learned brother Coyajee J. in the following words :Declare that the defendant not having been heard of since the day of he is deemed to be dead.It appears that my learned brother's att...

Public Prosecutor Vs. B. Nagamma

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad35

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C. C. No. 890 of 1947 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, a case under Section 5(1) (d), Madras Food Adulteration Act, for sale of milk adulterated with water to an extent of 57 per cent. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the respondent and fined her Rs. 150.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, on appeal, held that the prosecution had not been instituted by the 'local executive officer' but by the executive officer, Jammalmadugu Panchayat Board, and acquitted her. The Government have filed an appeal against the acquittal.2. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that, under Section 16, Public Health Act, a District Health Officer must be deemed to be the local executive officer, and, under Section 3 of Madras Act III [3] of 1918 (the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act), the District Health Officer, as local executive officer, can delegate his powers and duties under the Act (including his powers under...

N.T. Palanisamy Chettiar Vs. Komara Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad91

ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 116 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Coimbatore instituted by him for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23rd January 1944 executed by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 3 is a subsequent purchaser of the property and has therefore been impleaded. The suit was filed on 22nd January 1947 and issues were settled on 28th August 1947, The respondents filed I. A. No. 1216 of 1948 for adding themselves as party defendants 4 to 9 and this application was made under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the application are that respondents 1 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1 and that respondent 6 is the son of defendant 2 that in respect of the suit properties they filed O. S. No. 265 of 1947 in the Sub-Court of Coimbatore alleging that the alienations by defendants 1 and 2 are not binding on them and for partition and possession of their separate ...

The Public Prosecutor Vs. B. Nagamma

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ405

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C. No. 890 of 1947 on the-file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, a case under Section 5(1)(d) of the Madras Food Adulteration Act, for sale of milk adulterated with water to-an extent of 57 per cent. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the respondent and fined her Rs. 150. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, on appeal, held that the prosecution had not been instituted by the 'local Executive Officer' but by the Executive Officer, Jammalmadugu Panchayat Board, and acquitted'; her. The Government have filed an appeal against the acquittal.2. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that under Section 16 of the Public Health Act, a District Health Officer must be deemed to be the local Executive Officer, and, under Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1918 (the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act), the District Health Officer, as local Executive Officer, can delegate his powers and duties under the Act (including his powe...

Azima Bi Vs. Zohara Bi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad190

ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This civil revision petition raises the question of what is the proper court-fee payable on the suit plaint. The plaintiff is the petitioner and the suit is for partition in respect of her father's estate. Defendants 1 to 4. are the co-sharers and defendants 5 to 7 are the persons in possession of the suit property from whom the plaintiff seeks to recover possession on the ground that they are trespassers and are not entitled to the property. The plaintiff prays for a decree that the properties in the schedule to the plaint should be partitioned, and that she should be put in possession of her half share and also for mesne profits and costs of the suit. In para. 7 of the plaint it is stated that defendant 5 who claimed to be the owner of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit had a beneficial interest in it, the same having been purchased benami for him in the name of one Habibullah, the father of the petitioner. 2. Defendant 5 instituted O....

N.T. Palanisamy Chettiar by Agent, V.D. Seetharama Mudaliar Vs. Komara ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ568

Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 116 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Coimbatore instituted by him for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23rd January, 1944, executed by defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant is a subsequent purchaser of the property and has therefore been impleaded. The suit was filed on the 22nd January, 1947 and issues were settled on the 28th August, 1947. The respondents filed I.A. No. 1216 of 1948 for adding themselves as party defendants 4 to 9 and this application was made under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the application are that respondents 1 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant and that respondent 6 is the son of the 2nd defendant, that in respect of the suit properties they filed O.S. No. 265 of 1947 in the Sub-Court of Coimbatore alleging that the alienations by the 1st and 2nd defendants are not binding on them and for pa...

Paresh Chandra Bhowmick Vs. Usharanjan Ghosh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal346

Sen, J.1. This rule came up for hearing before Mookerjee and Das Gupta JJ. As there was a difference of opinion between them the matter has been placed before me for disposal by my Lord the Chief Justice.2. The facts giving rise to this rule briefly are as follows. The Maharaj Kumari Binodini Devi of Manipur deposited the sum of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand only) as a fixed deposit for six months in the Calcutta Mercantile Bank Limited at the Nabadwip Branch. Six months expired on 5th February 1947. On 6th of that month Maharaj Kumari Binodini Devi send her agent, Paresh Chandra Bhowmik, who is the complainant in this case, to get back the money deposited as the date of maturity had passed. Bhowmik appeared at the Nabadwip Branch of the Bank but he was told that there was no money there and he was asked to come to Calcutta to take money. On 7th February 1947, Bhowmik came to the Calcutta Head Office and he was put off for a week. He went to the bank from time to time and payment was...

Ganpat Lal and ors. Vs. Rex

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1950CriLJ935

ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The only question that arises for consideration in revision before the court is whe. ther the proceedings against the applicant in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code should be allowed to continue on the complaint as filed. The District Magistrate passed an order Under Section 114, Criminal P.C. The police submitted a report against the applicant and some others that they had contravened the order, and asked that action be taken against them in respect of the offence punishable Under Section 188, Penal code. The District Magistrate on receiving the report just countersigned it. The report in due coarse was presented before trial Court by the Police. The contention on behalf of the applicant before the Court is that there was no complaint of the District Magistrate within the meaning of 8, 195, Criminal P.C. and that, as such, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the case.2. The complaint is before the Court, and in no wa...

Dighola Ahom and ors. Vs. the King

Court : Guwahati

1. This is an appeal by 5 persons-one Dighola Ahom, Bhanu Ahom, Gopal Ahom, Dehiram Ahom, and Someswar Ahom-who were tried along with 4 others by the learned Sessions Judge, Lower Aasam Division, with the aid of a Jury for oflfonoes under S3. 147, 325 and 366, Penal Code. The jury brought a un-animous verdict of not guilty of any offence against i accused persons, but brought a verdict, of guilty against the 5 appellants Under Section 365, Penal Code., an offence with which they were not oharged, while acquitting them of the charges Under Section 366, Penal Code, and 147, Penal Code, The appellant Bbanu was in addition found guilty Under Section 335, Penal Code, The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the unanimous verdiot of the Jury against the S appellants and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment ' for S years Under Section 365, Penal Code, and further sentenced the appellant Bhanu Under Section 325, Penal Code., to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, the sentences to run...