Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad654
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal preferred by the plaintiff who sued to recover the amount due for principal and balance of interest on a promissory note dated 24th July 1930 executed by defendant 1 and others in his favour for Rs. 4600 is whether the defendants are entitled to any relief under the Usurious Loans Act. The suit promissory note carried interest at 24 per cent. per annum. It is common ground that this promissory note represents the final transaction in a series of transactions between the parties beginning in 1922, In that year there were two promissory notes executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1000 each, Exs. P. 4 and P. 5. Under these promissory notes the rate of interest was also 24 per cent. per annum. They were consolidated into a single promissory note on 20th September 1924, Ex. P. 6, for Rs. 2000. On 12th April 1927. for the amount due under the promissory note of 1924 both for principal and balance of interest, another pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All285
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. This is an application for issue of notice of contempt against Mr. A. R. Sinclair pay, District Magistrate of Banaras, and Mr. Krishna Narain Johiri, Assistant Bent Controller and Eviction Officer, Banaras. There is a house No. D47/192 in Ramapura, 'Banaras City; The house had been allotted by the Deputy Town Rationing Officer to one Mr. J. S. Misra, Assistant Engineer, P. W. D. Banaras, on 19th July 1947. The house had been under certain previous orders allotted to other persons but we are not concerned with the orders previous to the order dated 19th July 1947. Mr. Misra was transferred from Banaras and the Assistant Bent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mr. K. N. Johiri, purported to allot the house to Mr. D. Goyal, Assistant Engineer, P. W. D. Banaras, who was probably the successor of Mr. Misra. The landlord, who is the applicant before me, protested against the allotment of the house to Mr. Goyal on the ground that Mr. Goyal was already living with his wife, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All355
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Harchanda and Babu appeal against their conviction under Section 302, read with Section 34, Penal Code.2. Five other persons tried with these two appellants were acquitted by the Sessions Judge.3. The prosecution casa is that Atar Singh deceased asked Babu and Gopi to remove the earth which had been placed by them in order to construct a small platform or step to climb up the main platform, as this collected earth obstructed the passage. Harchanda and four other persons, all relations, arrived on the spot. Atar Singh spread over the earth, This led to exchange of abuses. The seven persons then went inside their house and returned armed and attacked Atar Singh with a spear, kirpan and lathis. The two appellants and three other persons are said to have been armed with lathis, Durga Das with a spear and Sukhbir with a kirpan.4. Atar Singh died the next day.5. Dr. Khan, Civil Surgeon, conducted the postmortem examination and found five injuries on the deceased, Two wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All371
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. I agree with the conclusions recorded by my learned brother, Desai J. and also with the order proposed by him. I would however, like to express my own views about the maintainability of the claim relating to the 'muafi', which has also been described as 'assignment of land revenue' and which is the 'grant' of land revenue, within the meaning of the term used in Section 4, Pensions Act (NO. XXIII [23] of 1871).2. The plaintiffs' suit, which has given rise to this appeal, related to specified shares in three items of property; viz., (1) a house in the city of Budaun; (2) the 'muafi'; and (3) the sir land. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge of Budaun; and the Court was competent and had jurisdiction to try the same. In view of the provisions contained in Section 4, Pensions Act, however, the Court could not entertain the suit, so far as it related to the 'muafi', unless the procedure prescribed in Sections 5 and 6 of the Act had been followed; tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad324
Govinda Menon, J. 1. These are petitions under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by the various petitioners herein praying that directions in the nature of habeas corpus to be issued to the superintendent of the respective jails in which they are confined to produce them before this Court so that they might be set at liberty. In all these cases the petitioners are detained under the provisions of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Act I [1] of 1947) as amended by the Madras Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XVII [17] of 1948). Madras Act I [1] of 1947 was to remain in force for a period of one year from 12th March 1947 and there was a provision therein that the Provincial Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, extend the continuance of the Act for a further period or periods not exceeding one year in the aggregate. In accordance with that provision contained in Section 1 (4) of Act I [1] of 1947, the Provincial Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad356
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This is a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband against his third wife. It would appear that he married the third wife when the second wife was alive. He had abandoned her and contracted this marriage. He was living for sometime with the third wife and when she became pregnant sent her to her parents' home for confinement. The husband thereupon called back the second wife to live with him and has since then been living with her. The third wife is the appellant before me, In the first Court she filed a written statement setting out that her jewels had been taken away by the husband and not returned to her and he has failed to account to her for the proceeds of her lands which he was managing. She also setup that she was told at the time of the marriage that the husband was not living with the second wife and that he had severed his connections with her and settled her maintenance claim and separated from her. Before the learnedDistrict Munsif i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad598
Vishwanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his right to go on the defendant's land and having access to ten tamarind and four iluppai trees belonging to the plaintiff for the purpose of collecting the produce of those trees. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence, this second appeal.2. One Venkatapathi Naidu owned a tope adjoining which there was a bit of poromboke land. On this poromboke land he planted the trees now claimed by the plaintiff. The Government asserted its right to the poromboke land and granted a tree patta in favour of Venkatapathi Naidu in respect of the trees planted by him on the poromboke. Venkatapathi Naidu was enjoying the produce of the trees in accordance with the terms of the tree patta granted to him. After his death his son Narayanaswami Naidu succeeded to his properties and sold the tope to one Poraiswami Chetti in 1940 and this person agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal159,54CWN677
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of a decree for Rs. 300 made in favour of the plaintiff by the Court of Small Causes at Berhampore.2. A suit was brought by the opposite party for recovery of rent of a certain house for the period April 1946 to August 1946 at the rate of Rs. 55 per month and also for the period April and May 1948 at the same rate together with damages amounting to Rs. 34/6. It appears that the petitioners who were the tenants admitted liability for the rent falling due in April and May 1948 and the whole contest between the partieswas confined to the liability for rent for the period April 1946 to August 1946. Eventually the learned Small Cause Court Judge held that the petitioners were liable for rent for that period together with a sum of Rs. 25 by way of damages. He accordingly passed a decree as I have said for Rs. 300.3. The petitioners have contended before us that the province of West Bengal was not liable for this rent and that the suit had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom88; 1950CriLJ746
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The non-applicant Tulsiram's com-plaint against the applicants, Vithi and Kashiram was registered under a. 494, Penal Code, by the First Glass Magistrate, Bhandara, on 9th January 1948 when summonses were ordered to be issued to them. They appeared in due course on 11th May 1948 and the Magistrate ordered the non-applicant to summon his witnesses on payment of process-fees for the hearing on 6th July 1948. Prior to that date, however, he did not pay the fees and the complaint was dismissed. Under Section 204 (3), Criminal P.C. In revision, however, this order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, and the applicants have now come up to this Court2. Rule 546 of the Rules and Order (Criminal) contains rules made Under Section 20 (ii), Court-fees Act and the first of them prescribes fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by criminal Courts in the case of offences other than offences for which police officer may arrest without a warr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom91; 1950CriLJ751
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The non-applicant Simon Dular had filed a complaint Under Sections 323 and 506, Penal Code, in the Court of Shri R.-C. Mukherji, Second Class Magistrate, Jashpurnagar, against the applicant the Eev. Father Godfrey Meeus, a missionary, but the District Magistrate, Raigarh, transferred it on 22nd January 1919 to the file of Shri Mahapatrao, also Second Class Magistrate, Jaahpurnagar, as the non. applicant is a member of the Janapada Sabha of which Shri Mukherji is Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Prior to this, on 12th November 1948, the applicant had in the non-applicant's presence presented a compromise petition in Shri Mukherji' a Court,-but Shri Mukherji was absent on that data and the case was adjourned to 29th November 1948 when he noted in the order-sheet that the petition should have come from the non-applicant Dular and not from the accused applicant.2. Proceedings, were stayed in view of the transfer application and after the District Magistrate had passed the ...
Tag this Judgment!