Privy Council Cases

Talbot and Co. Vs. Haricharan Halwasiya and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal47

P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by Messrs. Talbot & Co., a registered firm, for the recovery of possession of the premises No. 113, Park Street, Calcutta. There is also a claim for mesne profits.2. Messrs. Talbot & Co. were appointed Receivers of the said premises by order of Lort-Williams J. in Suit No. 991 of 1929, 'Sm. Provabati Debi v. J. C. Galstaun and Ors.' That order was made on 12-5-1930. By a further order made in that suit by Ameen Ali J. on 12-1-1938 the plaintiffs as Receivers were given liberty to grant lease for 10 years of the said premises to Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal. The present defendants are carrying on business under the name and style of Ganeshdas Ramgopal at 1, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. Originally there were 3 defendants one of whom - Nawal Kishore Halwasiya - died pending the suit and the necessary amendment was duly made bringing on the record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. In pursuance of the leave granted by this Court the plai...

Baburam Agarwalla Vs. Jamunadas Ramji and Co.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal239,54CWN189

ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Clause 13, Letters Patent for the transfer of Suit No. 39 of 1949 now pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Jalpaiguri. Baburam Agarwalla filed this suit against the applicants at Jalpaiguri for setting aside an ex parte decree passed by this Court on 11-12-1944, and thereafter sent to Jalpaiguri for execution against Baburam Agarwalla.2. The plaint in Jalpaiguri suit is annexed to the petition of the applicants who are a registered firm under the name of Jamunadas Ramji & Co., affirmed by Jamunadas Ramji, a partner of the applicant firm on 9-9-1949. The Jalpaiguri plaint claims to set aside the decree of this High Court in Suit No. 1273 of 1944 between the parties and dated, as I have said, 11-12-1944 on the ground that such decree was obtained by suppression of summons and of all notices and processes of this Court and there is a charge of fraud against the applicants. The relief claimed in the Jalpaiguri plaint is first fo...

Lennie Vs. Lennie

Court : House of Lords

LORD SIMONDS.-My noble and learned friend the LORD CHANCELLOR, who cannot be here to-day, has asked me to say that he concurs in the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Normand which will presently be read. My noble and learned friend Lord Merriman is also unable to be here and has asked me to read his opinion. LORD MERRIMAN.-I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my noble friend Lord Normand and am so completely in agreement with it that I have little to add. The one question about which I have felt any difficulty is whether the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938, must be interpreted in light of the decision in Goold v. Goold, that malicious denial of carnal intercourse persisted in for four years may constitute desertion within the meaning of the Act of 1573. But in Burrell v. Burrell the Lord President said that he had difficulty in appreciating certain of the implications of what he called "this recent innovation upon our law," and in reconciling ...

Shankarlal Patwari Vs. Hiralal Murarka and Others

Court : Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction dated 23rd February 1944, reversing a judgment and decree of the said High Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction in favour of Mangtulal Bagaria, the predecessor in title of the appellant, whereby it was ordered that the adult defendants personally and the infant defendants out of their shares in their joint family estate should pay to the said Mangtulal Bagaria the sum of Rs. 73,186 with interest and costs. 2. The facts leading up to the suit out of which this appeal arises are long and complicated and have been related in the judgments delivered by the learned Judges in the Court of Appeal in India. No useful purpose will be served by repeating them. The only matter which has been argued in this appeal relates to what was the exact decision given by the trial Judge, Ameer Ali J. 3. The suit was a suit by Mangtulal Bagaria for royalties due under a lease ...

Ghulam HusaIn and anr. Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All367

ORDERDesai, J. 1. The applicants were convicted by a Magistrate under Section 27, D. P. Shopa and Com-mercial Establishments Act, XXII [22] of 1947, for not closing their shop on three Thursdays in com-pliance with an order issued by the District Magistrate. Under Section 10 of the Act, every employer is bound to close his shop on one day of the week, known as the 'close day', the choice of the close day is of the employer though subject to the approval of such authority aa may be appointed in this behalf, and the employer is required to specify the close day in a notice permanently exhibited in the shop. Under the rules, the District Magistrate is the authority appointed to approve of close days. The case against the applicants is that the District Magistrate issued an order fixing Thursday as the close day and that the applicants failed to close their shop on three Thursdays. The reply of the applicants is that they were observing Friday as the close day and had closed their shop on ...

Periannan and Ors. vs. Airabadeeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Kovil of O ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1952Mad323; (1952)IMLJ71

1. These second appeals and the civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits relating to the village of Manamelpatti, a Dharmasanam village, in the Ramnad District. The suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted by the trustees of Airabhadeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Temple for ejectment of the defendants from the lands in their respective possession and for recovery of rent for faslis 1349 and 1350 and for future profits. The village comprises 80 pangus out of which the plaint temple in this batch owns 23 1/2 pangus purchased from the original owners and one pangu taken on othi from the owner. The plaintiffs in the batch of suits out of which the civil revision petitions arise are the managers of the Devasthanam of Nagara Vairavanpatti Valaroleeswaraswami Nagara Vairavaswami Devasthanam. This temple owns 54 and 5/8th pangus or shares in the village and suits were instituted for recovery of the balance of amounts due as 'iru bogam' for faslis 1349 and 1350....

Subramanian (Minor) and ors. Vs. M.P. Vasudevan Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad488

ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether in a petition filed by the arbitrators under Section 14, Arbitration Act (Act X [10] of 1940) for filing an award, persons who were eo nomine, not parties to either the agreement of reference or to the award could be added as necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. On a reference made by three brothers, Subbaratnam Chettiar, Vasudevan Chettiar and Krishnaswami Chettiar to two arbitrators regarding the partition of their family properties the arbitrators gave an award. The award was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14, Arbitration Act, in O. P. No. 90 of 1947, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Trichinopoly. Subbaratnam Chettiar remained ex parte in the arbitration proceedings. He became insolvent since the filing of O. P. No. 9 of 1947, and the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly was brought on record as representing his estate. Subbaratnam Chettiar file...

In Re: P. Krishnamurthi

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad511

ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, P. Krishnamurti, has been convicted under Section 37(4), City Police Act and has been fined Rs. 35 by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for receiving beta on horses running at the Guindy races at about 3-30 P. M. on 4th December 1948.2. Mr. Ghatala, for the petitioner, raised three main contentions: The first was that P. W. 2, who swore to his giving the petitioner Rs. 1.4.0 three times that day for betting, cannot be believed as P. W. 2 did not know the petitioner before and could not have paid him the three bet amounts, especially as there were the regular race course men ready to receive bets. I cannot agree. The regular race course men don't receive petty amounts like Rs. 1-4-0 from betting enthusiasts of poor means like P. W. 2. They cater to gentlemen who can afford to pay the regulation bet amount. Bucket-shop men secretly cater to men of petty means like P. W. 2. Nor is previous friendship essential for giving and taking bets. ...

Tobacco Manufactures (India) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Marian Stewart

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal164

S.N. Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the employer from an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, awarding compensation against the employer to the widow of the deceased workman in the following circumstances.2. One Lionel Henry Stewart was a mechanic employed by Messrs. Tobacco ., (who is the employer,) in its Kidderpore Factory. Stewart lived in Howrah and had to attend the Factory at 8 in the morning, On 10th April 1947, he was going to work riding a bicycle. He was knocked down by a lorry belonging to the Civil Supplies, Government of West Bengal, near Princep's Memorial and received injuries. Stewart died on 13th April 1947 from the injuries. His widow claimed compensation from the employer on the ground that the accident arose in course of and out of the employment.3. The law is well established that the workman in order to be entitled to the compensation, should be acting in the course of his employment, that is to say, when he is doing someth...

Mohammad Mateen Vs. Baijnath Bajoria and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal358,54CWN287

P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the pltf. for the recovery of possession of premises No. 83, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta, and for mesne profits.2. Nagendra Nath Das and Ramesh Chandra Bhowmick were the joint owners of 83, Lower Circular Road, which was a vacant plot of land. By a registered lease dated 29-11-1943, the said owners Nagendra Nath Das and Ramesh Chandra Bhowmick let out the said vacant land to the defts., carrying on business in the name of National Motors for a term of 3 years with effect from 1-12-1943. The lease provides that on the expiry of the said term the defts. should deliver quiet and peaceful possession to the lessors. By a conveyance dated 4-5-1946, the said Nagendra Nath Das and Ramesh Chandra Bhowmick sold the said land to the pltf. Notice of the transfer was duly given to the defts. and the defts. were asked to attorn and pay rent to the pltf. The defts. paid rent to the pltf. thereafter until the determination of the said lease. The lease expired on...