Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Year: 1934 Page 9 of about 158 results (0.044 seconds)

Sep 14 1934 (PC)

Thomas Bear and Sons (India) Vs. Prayag Narain

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-14-1934

Reported in : AIR1935All7

king, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling chewing tobacco contained in tins or packets bearing the trade-mark of an elephant which is a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's trade-mark.2. the plaintiff is a firm styled 'thomas bear & sons (india) limited.' the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff company, or its predecessor in business, have been carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling cigarettes and tobacco for many years and have been doing extensive business in india. all the goods sold by the company bear the design of an elephant which is the trade-mark of the company. in particular, the company has since the year 1922 been selling in india a brand of cigarettes called the 'elephant' cigarettes and a brand of tobacco known as 'virginia bird's eye' in tins and packets bearing the elephant trademark. the defendant has recently started the sale of chewing tobacco manufactured by him at cawnpore and this tobacco is sold in tins bearing a label on which the picture of an elephant and the name 'elephant' is prominently displayed and therefore resembles the plaintiff's trade-mark. the plaintiff contends that purchasers are likely to be deceived by the picture of the elephant on the defendant's tins and will suppose that the defendant's goods are manufactured or sold by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's business, goodwill and reputation are likely to sustain injury.3. the principal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1934 (PC)

Mannilal Anandji Vs. B.N. Ry. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-20-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal271a,155Ind.Cas.1052

..... insist on such a high standard would be to make an indian railway administration virtually an insurer and not a bailee, whose responsibility,, is defined in sections 151 and 152, contract act.5. with regard to the consignment booked at amgaon there is a further difficulty that bars the success of the plaintiff. his agent admitted that the consignment had not ..... india, the liability of a railway administration is not that of a common carrier. it is not an insurer. its liability is that of a bailee as defined in the contract act. if there is no negligence there is no liability. whatever the term misconduct may simply, it is quite apparent from a comparison of clause (1) with clause (2) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1934 (PC)

Durgapada Karmakar Vs. Nrisingha Chandra

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-14-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal541,159Ind.Cas.20

..... and though it was not registered the defendants came into possession on the basis of the said patta which was for consideration. there has been consequently part performance of the contract. section 53-a is retrospective in its operation and applies to pending actions. therefore, though the present suit was instituted on 10th june 1929, the plaintiff is debarred from ejecting ..... which has inserted a new section 53-a in the principal section whereby a defendant in an action of ejectment, may in certain circumstances effectively plead possession under an unregistered contract of sale in defence to the action. their lordships' view as enforced in the present case must therefore be understood to be referable to the state of the law before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1934 (FN)

United States Vs. Guaranty Trust Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-10-1934

..... the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be;" "2. that he has a good title to it;" "3. that all prior parties had capacity to contract." [ footnote 6 ] treasury department circular no. 176. december 31, 1919. [ footnote 7 ] reserve bank circular no. 258, march 1, 1920. [ footnote 8 ] the united states was not a party to ..... liable because of its indorsement. the argument is that its indorsement, made when the check was presented for payment through the federal reserve bank of new york, is an independent contract governed by the law of new york, spies v. national city bank, 174 n.y. 222, 225, 66 n.e. 736; that, by the negotiable instrument law of that state ..... , the money may be recovered as having been paid under a mistake. the law of the district determines the formal and essential validity of the check, the interpretation of the contract, the incidents of the obligation. but the trust company does not attempt to enlarge or modify the obligation of the drawer as determined by the law of the district. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1934 (PC)

K.P. Raman Menon Vs. the Malabar Forest and Rubber Company, Limited, i ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-17-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad163; (1935)68MLJ269

..... the court. it is argued that the parties to ex. e, regarded company as the lessee and not khale who admittedly was merely the benamidar for the company, that the contract really was with the company and not with khale, and that it was the company's going into liquidation and not the insolvency of khale that was to incur the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1934 (PC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chengalvaroya Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-08-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad617

..... , lord sumner says:they (the company) said, much as has been said in this case, that before profits can be made out of working a contract, the contract has to be got and the payment of its price is the root of the profits. the court held that this sum was paid with the rest ..... in the words i have earlier referred to, as of doubtful validity in the hands of outsiders, emphasizes this conclusion. the 30,000 paid for the contracts or for its equivalent, therefore, became part of the appellant's fixed capital and could not properly appear in his revenue account. if that be so, ..... be very advantageous to the purchaser. these coal contracts were valued at 30,000. the appellant claimed, in arriving at the amount of the profits duty under the finance act 1915, to deduct this 30 ..... on the terms of taking over the assets of the business at a valuation but without paying anything for goodwill. the assets included certain forward coal contracts made by the father with several colliery owners, for the delivery of coal by the latter in periodic instalments, and prices which ultimately turned out to ..... entered into a number of similar agreements affects the question. it seems to me that the observations made by bowen, l.j., in city of london contract corporation, limited v. styles which are referred to in alagannan chetty v. the commissioner of income tax, madras are very much in point. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1934 (PC)

Kotla Venkataswamy Vs. Chinta Ramamurthy and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad579

..... defendant; 4. the mortgage deed was signed by the working director and by the secretary to the company (defendants 1 and 2). the plaint avers that the debt was regularly contracted in accordance with the powers and authority possessed by the said director and secretary under the articles of the said company and the special resolutions passed from time to time ..... in his written statement says that he does not admit that the document was executed by and on behalf of the company, defendants 1 and 2 not being competent to contract loans, much less to charge the property of the company. objection is taken to the form of this statement, the contention being that it is not enough to say that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1934 (PC)

Shanmugan and ors. Vs. P.L.A.P.L. Annamalai Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-17-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad141

..... document. but adaikkalava was made the trustee and plaintiff the beneficiary under the terms cf ex. h. in such a case the rule of law that third parties to a contract cannot take the benefit of the contract does not apply : vide tirumulu subbu chetti v. arunachalam chettiar 1930 mad. 382. ex. h can scarcely be described as a bare ..... contract. it is a family settlement purporting to settle disputes and allot properties to the persons intended to be adopted. until the adoptions are made, the property was left in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1934 (PC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U. Chengalvaroya Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-08-1934

Reported in : 152Ind.Cas.48

..... lord sumner says:they (the company) said, much as has been said in this case, that before profits can be made out of working a contract, the contract has got to be got and the payment of its price is the root of its profits. the court held that this sum was paid with ..... the words 1 have earlier refened to, as of doubtful validity in the hands of outsiders, emphasises this conclusion. the 30,010 paid for the contracts or for its equivalent therefore became part of the appellant's fixed capital and could not properly appear in his revenue account. if that be so, ..... to be very advantageous to the purchaser. these coal contracts were valued at 30,000. the appellant claimed in arriving at the amount of the profits of the business chargeable to excess profits duty under the ..... the terms of taking over the assets of the business at a valuation but without paying anything for good will. the assets included certain forward coal contracts made by the father with several colliery owners, for the delivery of coal by the latter in periodical instalments, at prices which ultimately turned out ..... previously entered into a number of similar agreements affects the question. it seems to me that the observations made by bowen, l.j., in city of london contract corporalion limited v. styles (1887) 2 t.c. 239 which are referred to in alaganan chetty v. commissioner of income-tax, madras : air1928mad902 page .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1934 (FN)

Schumacher Vs. Beeler

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-17-1934

schumacher v. beeler - 293 u.s. 367 (1934) u.s. supreme court schumacher v. beeler, 293 u.s. 367 (1934) schumacher v. beeler no. 215 argued november 16, 1934 decided december 17, 1934 293 u.s. 367 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus 1. section 23(b) of the bankruptcy act, as amended, operates as a grant of jurisdiction to the district court of suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy against adverse claimants, provided the defendants consent to be sued in that court, although the suits be such that the bankrupts could not have brought them in that court if the proceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted. p. 293 u. s. 371 . 2. of suits falling within the exceptions specified in 23(b) -- namely, suits for the recovery of property under 60(b), 67(e), and 70(e) -- the district court has jurisdiction without the defendants' consent. p. 293 u. s. 376 . 71 f.2d 831 affirmed. certiorari to review a decree reversing a decree of the district court which dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction. this was a plenary suit by a trustee in bankruptcy against a sheriff to enjoin the sale of property of the bankrupt under an execution from a state court. page 293 u. s. 368 mr. chief justice hughes delivered the opinion of the court. in granting the writ of certiorari, we limited our review to the question of the jurisdiction of the district court under 23(b) of the bankruptcy act. that provision, and its immediate context, 23(a), are set forth in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //