|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 11 of 11 Records
-
1950 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 00. He might have been wrong in doing so, but the decree, if it has to be in conformity with the judgment, could only provide for the pleader's fee as fixed in the judgment. Now, assuming that the learned Judge was mistaken in fixing the fee at ₹ 200 in the judgment, the only course open to the defendants to set the matters right was to apply for a review of the judgment or to prefer an appeal to this Court. Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C., in our opinion cannot be invoked in substitution of the specific remedies of review and appeal. Under these sections, relief cannot be granted which properly falls within the scope of review and appeal. The learned Judge was in error in allowing the application for amendment of the decree. The decree in so far as it was amended shall be set aside and the decree as originally framed shall be restored. As the appellants have substantially failed in the appeal, they shall pay the costs of this appeal to the contesting respondents.
-
1950 (2) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has permitted them to reside. If this construction were not to be accepted, and actual physical residence at the time of the application is the test, then, the consequences are startling. A man may have five houses and four children. He can arrange for each of his children to reside in each of the four houses without his residing in any of them and apply for eviction of the tenant occupying the fifth house. Such a contingency could not have been contemplated by the Act. This is not a case in which there has been a separation between the landlord and any of his wives so that it can be said that the wife is residing in a house on her own account and as of right, say, under a decree of Court. 5. We, therefore, hold that the landlord in this case must be held to be occupying a residential house of his own in the City and, therefore his application for eviction must fail. There will be an order accordingly dismissing his (landlord's) application. We make no order as to costs.
-
1950 (2) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly found to be wholly unreliable. There is no plea or proof of any detriment or prejudice to the plaintiff by the statements made by defendant l in Exs. P. 2, P. 4 and P. 22 with a view to secure for him the office of village headman. The securing of the office of village headman was advantageous and beneficial to the plaintiff on account of the emoluments, recognized and unrecognized attached to that office. No onerous obligation was cast upon him by reason of the abatement as the learned Advocate-General would contend. The elements necessary to constitute an estoppel are wholly lacking in this case and we are unable to uphold the contention of the learned Advocate-General that defendant 1 is debarred from disputing the truth and validity of the plaintiff's adoption. 9. In this view we need not express any opinion as regards the construction of Ex. P. 1. For these reasons we agree with the conclusion of the learned District Judge and dismiss the second appeal with costs.
-
1950 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a position to get the company to conform to their view, it is their duty to do so and to give effect to the solemn undertaking that they have given to the Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge was right in the view that he took that the defendants were guilty of contempt of Court, and he was also right in ordering them to carry out the requisitions contained in his order. 12 We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs and confirm the order of the learned Judge below. We would only modify the order to this extent, that as the time given by the learned Judge for carrying out the requisitions has expired, we would extend that time for one month from to-day. 13 We would further like to say that the defendants would be well advised in getting the company to join as a confirming party to the lease and we have no doubt that if they seriously intend to do so there should be no difficulty in their way in bringing about this result. 14 Appeal dismissed.
-
1950 (2) TMI 12 - LAHORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al was that even for a declaration that the partition effected by the Plaintiff during minority was void recourse should have been had to a revenue and not to a civil Court. This contention was repelled by the Court of appeal and it covered the second ground of appeal. 9. In Sukhdeo Singh v. Mathra Singh A.I.R.1933 Lab. 412 112 I.C. 606, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that by disputing the Plaintiffs' title to a part of the lands hold under a common title the Defendant had in fact disputed the title of the Plaintiffs to all the lands held jointly and a suit for declaration was competent. It was further held in this case that where jurisdiction is given to the revenue Court the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts is not necessarily ousted and Section 117 Punjab Land Revenue Act, does not expressly deprive the ordinary Courts of jurisdiction to decide a declaratory suit. 10. For the reasons given above I see no force in this appeal and dismiss it with costs.
-
1950 (2) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lding that the application was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The appellant did in his objections vaguely raise the question of jurisdiction, but even so the matter was never pressed and never adjudicated upon. Whether adjudication would have affected the question the Court need not consider as all that can be argued is that the question of jurisdiction could and should have been raised and therefore cannot be agitated again. In my view the orders did not preclude the appellant from urging that the sale should be set aside and in my opinion the learned Subordinate Judge should have set aside this sale for want of jurisdiction. 62. In the result therefore this appeal is allowed. The order of the lower Court is set aside and the sale is set aside and the whole proceedings are held to be void and of no effect. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in the Court below. I would assess the hearing fee in this Court at ten gold mohurs. Sarkar, J. I agree.
-
1950 (2) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erintendence which this Court now has is practically the right it had under the Act of 1919. The position today, therefore, is precisely the same as it was when Loke Nath's case AIR1934Cal102 was decided, and therefore, it appears to me that we must follow that decision as it is binding on us. We, therefore, must hold that we now can interfere, either under Section 115, Civil P. C. or under powers which we now possess under the new Constitution to superintend the lower Courts. 7. That being so, I would allow this application, set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and remand the case to him, with the direction that he should allow the amendment of the plaint as prayed. An opportunity of course must be given to the defendants to file amended written statements and then the case will proceed. 8. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in these terms, but in the circumstances I would direct that costs of this application be costs in the suit. Sarkar, J. I agree.
-
1950 (2) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ITR 426 , it was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that income derived from the sale of sal trees growing spontaneously in forests and not planted by man was "agricultural" income within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act. There was no digging or ploughing of the land nor planting of trees but there were "operations in forestry" such as guarding the forest trees to keep away cattle and allowing leaves and undergrowth to be removed by people of the locality. There was no breaking up of the soil, no sowing or planting or watering or fencing. Whether the decision is correct or not can only be authoritatively declared by the Supreme Court of India. It seems to rest on an undue extension of the principle laid down by the Judicial Committee in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan’s case (supra) and goes much further than our decision in the present case. I agree in the direction as to costs made by my learned brother.
-
1950 (2) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eir application by the assessee is immaterial in determining the liability of the income, profits and gains to tax. There is here no charge created by the testator or the executors for the "maintenance allowances" which have been treated merely as current outgoings of the estate. It may be observed that the English Courts have always held that the executor was assessable on the whole of his income from the estate till the administration was over Barnardo's Homes v. Special Income Tax Commissioners. Inland Revenue v. Smith and Corbett v. Inland Revenue. The question now under consideration arose for the decision of the Bombay High Court in Executors of J.K. Dubash v. Commissioner of Income-tax) and it was answered against the assessee. For these reasons I would answer the second question referred to as in the affirmative and against the assessees. I concur in the direction for costs contained in the judgment of my learned brother. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1950 (2) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURTVAT
exempted from taxation ... ... ... ... ..... e licence issued to the plaintiffs in this case, which we have perused, does not prevent such a mode of earning bro- kerage or commission. Apparently, under the impression that the licences prevented such levy of double commission, the plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that they were commission agents for the sellers though, in fact, they collected a commission both from the buyer and the seller of groundnuts. Indeed the Government did not dispute the right of the plaintiffs to collect this double commission in the written statement filed in the case. There is no transgression of the terms of the licence issued to the plaintiffs, and even if there was any, it would not have the effect of reducing the commission agents to the position of dealers as defined in the Act and making them chargeable under Section 3(1) of the Act. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the decision of the Courts below is correct and these appeals should be dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1950 (2) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Prospectus – Registration of, Shares – Power, to issue of at discount, Directors – Power of and Winding up - Liability as contributories of present and post members
|
