Privy Council Cases

Manmohan Das Vs. United Provinces and Others

Court : Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: These consolidated appeals are from a decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 22nd August 1941, and from an earlier decree of a Division Bench of that Court, dated 30th April 1940, both decrees being made in the winding-up of the Lower Ganges and Jumna Electricity Distributing Co., Ltd., (hereinafter called the company). 2. The question which calls for decision is whether certain mortgage debentures issued by the company for the purpose of securing a sum of Rs. 3 lacs with interest, and secured by a debenture trust deed, constitute a valid charge on the undertaking and assets of the company, or whether the charge upon the undertaking intended to be created in favour of the debenture holders is void by reason of the provisions of S. 9, sub-Ss. (2) and (3), Electricity Act IX [9] of 1910 (hereinafter called the Act). These sub-sections are in the following terms : "9. (2) The licensee shall not at any time assign his licence or tr...

Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria and Another Vs. State of Gondal by His H ...

Court : Privy Council

LORD RADCLIFFE: These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 8th November 1943. The first of these decrees reversed a judgment against the respondent the State of Gondal in favour of the present appellants which had been given on 15th January 1943, by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction : the second decree dismissed an appeal by these appellants from the same judgment in so far as it rejected their claim in the suit against respondents 2 and 3. 2. The facts out of which the litigation arises are simple and they have produced no material divergence of view in the Courts in India. The real question is how the law should be applied to those facts. All that it is necessary to notice may be briefly set out as follows. On 1st October 1926, a limited company called The Currimbhoy Mills Co. Ltd., executed a debenture trust deed mortgaging two mills known as the Currimbhoy Mill and the Mahomedbhoy Mill together with certa...

Ram Kishna Vs. Ramjanki Shiva Parbati Maharaj and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All355

Malik, C.J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad dated 10-12-1848.2. A suit was tiled in the Court of the learned Civil Judge in 1947 in which the issues that were framed by his predecessor were as follows :1. Whether Baijnath was the owner of the property in suit 2. Whether Baijnath dedicated the property in suit in favour of the plaintiffs Whether the waqf was acted upon 3. Whether the suit is barred by Articles 142 and 144, Limitation Act 4. Whether the court fee paid is insufficient 5. Is the suit barred by Section 42, Specine Relief Act 6. Whether the plaintiffs are members of Nawyuwak Mandal and is it a registered body, if so, what is us effect on the suit 7. Are the plaintiffs competent to maintain the suit Or is the suit as framed not maintainable 8. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled 3. The parties went to trial on these issues. Evidence was recorded, arguments were heard and the j...

Palak Dhari Vs. Paras Nath

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All400

Mootham, J.1. This is a second appeal from a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Basti dated 9th February 1946.2. The relevant facts can be very shortly stated. The appellant applied for the benefit of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, and in due course an order was made by the Collector under Section 6 of that Act forwarding the appellant's application to the Special Judge. Subsequently the respondent brought a suit against the appellant for the recovery of certain mesne profits, and on 29th May 1911, he obtained a decree. It is not clear whether the claim to mesne profits arose before or after the passing of the order under Section 6, but that in my opinion is immaterial. On 15th May 1944, the respondent sought to execute his decree by the attachment and sale of certain Zamindari property belonging to the appellant. The appellant contended that in view of the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act the decree could not be executed and that in any case his...

Rupai Vs. GoshaIn Ram Charandas

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All391

Waliullah, J.1. These are two appeals by two sets of judgment-debtors whose objections directed against an application for execution have been dismissed by the Court below.2. It appears that Suit No. 88 of 1932 was instituted by Goshain Ram Charan Das against several sets of defendants. By means of this suit the plaintiff claimed recovery of distinct items of property from different defendants on the ground that they belonged to a Math of which he was the rightful Mahant. Some of the defendants appear to have admitted the claim made by the plaintiff while others resisted the claim. In the result the trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his claim to the Mahantahip of the Math and accordingly the plaintiff's claim was decreed as against those defendants who had admitted his claim while it was dismissed as against the other defendants who had contested the claim Goshain Ram Gharan Das came up in appeal to the High Court against the dismissal of a part of his claim ...

Sm. Safdari Begam Vs. Ashfaq HusaIn Khan

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All538

ORDERDesai, J. 1. The applicant instituted proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., against Ashfaq Husain Khan alleging that there was a dispute between them about possession over a house which was likely to cause breach of peace. The Magistrate got an enquiry made by the Police who reported that there was a dispute and that it was likely to result in breach of peace. The Magistrate thereupon passed the preliminary order calling upon the parties to file written statements in support of their claims of possession. The date fixed for filing of the written statements was 22nd May 1948. When the case was called out on that date the applicant was absent while the opposite party was present. The Magistrate dismissed the applicant's complaint 'in default' and released the house from the attachment. The applicant appeared in the Court shortly after the dismissal of her complaint and presented another complaint on the same allegations. The Magistrate treated it as a fresh application and ...

Narendra Bhoi and ors. Vs. Bhagaban Das

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1951Ori147

Panigrahi, J.1. The plaintiff raised the suit for the recovery of mortgage moneys advanced under two mortgage deeds, viz. Ex. 2 dated 12-5-23 and Ex. 1 dated 1-4-30 executed by the defendant, for Rs. 25/- and Rs. 100/- respectively. The lands mortgaged were plot No. 230 and plots' Nos. 1016 to 1018. The documents describe themselves as Dakhal Bandak and recite that the properties are put in possession of the mortgagee in lieu of interest and that the mortgagor shall not claim an account of the rents and profits issuing out of the lands, nor shall the mortgagee demand any interest for the sum lent. They further recite that if the principal amount is paid within the period fixed for redemption, the mortgaged properties shall stand redeemed. Under the first document the period fixed for redemption was nine years, while under the other document it was one year. The recital on which there has been controversy between the parties is as follows:'If you are dispossessed you can file a suit for...

BipIn Behari Ray and ors. Vs. Rakhal Krishna Hazra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal229

Harries, C.J.1. This is an application for extension of time to make the necessary deposit under the provisions of Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P. C.2. Admittedly the payments were not made in time and the question arises whether this Court has jurisdiction to extend the time.3. Other High Courts have held that by reason of the Rules governing Appeals to His Majesty in Council the High Court has jurisdiction to extend the time and I am party to one of those decisions whilst sitting in the High Court at Patna. This Court however has consistently held that the time for making the deposit under Order 46, Rule 7, cannot be extended and that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant an application such as the present.4. This matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Govind Narain Singh v. Shamlal Singh, 39 C. W. N. 651. There an application was made to cancel a certificate on the ground that the deposit had not been made in time in accordance with the provisions of Order 46, Rule ...

Kedar Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Kalimata of Kalighat ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal341

Harries, G.J.1. In this ease it is conceded that the value of the suit and the value of the appeal exceed RS. 10,000. The appeal was allowed in part and portion of the decree of the trial Court was vacated.2. In these circumstances it appears to us that the decree of this Court is not a decree of affirmance but is a decree varying the decree of the Court below. That being so the appellants are entitled as of right to a certificate and accordingly we grant leave to appeal and grant a certificate under Section 110, Civil P. C.3. Costs of this application will be costs in the appeal the hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs. 4. Let the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be kept on the record.Banerjee J.I agree....

Keho Bam Hazarika Vs. the Government of Assam

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya J.1. This is a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., from a security prisoner from Nowgong Jail. The order of detention was passed by the Government of Asaam on 3-10-1919 under Sections (1)(a), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, as amended. The order directed that the petitioner shall be detained for a period of six months with effect from 7-10-1949. A copy of the grounds of detention was sent to the petitioner along with the order and he was informed that he was at liberty to make a representation against the order of detention. He was further informed that his representation should reach the Government; not later than 30-10-1949. The grounds of detention were as follows:(a) That you, being an active member of the Students' Federation, Nowgong, under the influence of the G, P. I, have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order.(b) That you have endangered public peace and tranquillity at Nowgong by urging la...