Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Year: 1946 Page 13 of about 130 results (0.052 seconds)

Jan 09 1946 (PC)

Daulatrao Malojirao Vs. Province of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-09-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Bom340; (1947)49BOMLR270

leonard stone, kt., c.j.1. on march 17, 1944, judgment was delivered in this appeal by my brother divatia and myself, by which we held, that as the plaintiff's claim is advanced and rests upon a saranjam tenure, section 4 of the bombay revenue jurisdiction act of 1876 is a bar to any relief being granted to the plaintiff against government relating to the suit lands, in so far as they are classified to be granted or held as saranjam. at the same time, we pointed out, that the appeal raised a very important question so far as the general body of the saranjamdars is concerned and we intimated that government might desire to have it judicially determined by making a reference under section 12 of the bombay revenue jurisdiction act. accordingly, before passing any order, we gave an opportunity for a reference to be made, and it is such reference which is now before this full bench. the facts sufficiently appear from the judgments delivered on march 17, 1944, and arising out of what was then said government have referred to us the following questions:-(1) whether on february 25, 1936, being the date of the sub-divisional grant of the gajendragad estate, the saranjam tenure in the 60 acres had been destroyed by the adverse possession of the kulkarni and his predecessors-in-title.(2) whatever be the answer to question (1), what is the effect upon the tenure of the 60 acres as it existed immediately before february 25, 1936 :(a) as a result of the 1936 resolution, and(b) as a result .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1946 (PC)

Maruti Aba Bongane Vs. Akaram Pandu More

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-20-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Bom400; (1947)49BOMLR294

..... if in a narrative a reference is made to a contention of one party, that opens the door to seeing first what that contention is, and then going to the contract on which the parties' rights depend to see if that contention is sound. here it is impossible to say, from what is shown on the face of the award, what .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1946 (PC)

Sheikh Mohammad Vs. Mt. Rukmina Kunwar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-24-1946

Reported in : AIR1946All506

..... -8-1937 against mt. rukmina kuer and others who are some of the opposite parties, in the present revision. the suit was, inter alia, for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale. prior to the institution, of the suit viz., on 28-10-1936, rukmina kuer had filed an application under the encumbered estates act, which application has been, in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1946 (PC)

Hajie Saeed and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-11-1946

Reported in : [1947]15ITR51(All)

pathak, j. - this is a reference made under section 66 (3) of the indian income-tax act before its amendment in 1939 by the commissioner of income-tax. the question which has been referred to this court for decision is as follows :-'whether, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the relevant rules framed by the central board of revenue, the income-tax officer was legally competent to refuse the renewal of registration of the assessee firm for the assessment year 1939-40 when the firm had been duly registered under section 26a of the act and renewal of registration had been granted in previous years.'the material facts giving rise to this reference are very short and may be stated thus. three brothers, haji mohammad rafi, haji mohammad shafi and haji mohammad sami, are the assessees in this case. they carry on business in the printing and sale of religious books at cawnpore and calcutta. on the 16th of july, 1932, an instrument of partnership was executed by the assessees, by which, according to them, they constituted a partnership in which they held equal shares. during the assessment year 1932-33 an application for registration of this alleged firm was made under section 26a of the income-tax act by the assessees. this application was granted and the firm was registered for that year. thereafter applications for renewal of registration were made year after year and the last renewal of certificate was effective until the end of the assessment year 1938-39. on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1946 (PC)

In Re: Patan Alli Khan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-18-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad248; (1946)2MLJ195

horwill, j.1. in the court of the sessions judge of chittoor there were four accused. the first was charged under section 302 of the indian penal code with the murder of one bandi ramalingappa. the other three were charged under the same section read with section 109 of the code with abetment of the murder. there was also a minor charge against the fourth accused of voluntarily causing hurt the first accused was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. the second accused was found guilty of abetment of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. the third and fourth accused were acquitted. the first and second accused have appealed.2. it has been argued as a preliminary point that there was no legal conviction of the two appellants; because the judgment was written by a judge having no jurisdiction to write the judgment and pronounced by a judge who had not heard the evidence. the facts on which this argument is based are these: the evidence was recorded and arguments heard by mr. nainar. thereafter, he handed over charge to mr. panchapakesa aiyar, who had been appointed to relieve him at chittoor. mr. nainar had been appointed to the guntur sessions division, but did not join immediately and was not in charge of it on any of the material dates on the 12th january, 1946, the day after he had completed the hearing of the case, mr. nainar dictated the judgment to the shorthand writer in the judge's bungalow. at that time, mr. panchapakesa aiyar was the district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1946 (PC)

Gedela Atchayya and ors. Vs. Koppisetti Appalaraju and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad109; (1946)2MLJ233

orderchandrasekhara aiyar, j.1. original suit no. 204 of 1929 was a suit to recover possession of a site from defendants 1 to 3, to have a street restored, and for the payment of a sum of rs. 50 as damages for the year 1928. the plaint was presented on 13th july, 1929. there was a decree in favour of the plaintiffs on 17th august, 1931, directing defendants 1 to 3 to remove the enclosure around the site that they had put up and to put the plaintiffs in possession of it so that it might be available for communal user of the plaintiffs and the defendants; the street was to be restored to its original condition, and defendants 1 to 3 were directed to pay the plaintiffs rs. 30 as damages for the year 1928. there was no claim for mesne profits subsequent to 1928 and the decree awarded none. the decree-holders applied to the district munsiff in i.a. no. 221 of 1943 for the ascertainment of future mesne profits under order 20, rule 12, civil procedure code and for a decree for the amount that may be ascertained. they were resisted by the first defendant, one of the three judgment-debtors, who pleaded that the liability had become discharged by reason of section 10, clause (2) of the madras debt conciliation act, 1936, (a) as he applied for a settlement of his dpbts and the decree-holders did not file any statement setting out this debt arising in connection with future mesne profits and (b) that the application under order 20, rule 12, civil procedure code, was misconceived, as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1946 (PC)

Picha Mooppanar Vs. Velu Pillai and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad203; (1946)2MLJ404

..... that this provision is absolutely illusory as no creditor can take advantage of what is binding only as between the first and second defendants. creditors are not parties to the contract embodied in the partition deed and if the concerned defendant refuses to discharge a debt which he is directed to pay under ex. d-1, i dc not see how .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1946 (PC)

S.K. Sahul Hamid and anr. Vs. S.M. Sulthan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-20-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad287; (1947)1MLJ20

..... the firm with the property of the firm without any final settlement of accounts as between them and the outgoing partner or his estate, then, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the outgoing partner or his estate is entitled at the option of himself or his representatives to such share of the profits made since he ceased to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1946 (PC)

The Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. C. Ramaswami and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-05-1946

Reported in : AIR1946Mad396; (1946)1MLJ343

..... been brought during the lifetime of badri singh and judgment recovered against him, the position would have been different.6. their lordships said:if the debt in question was not contracted for purposes regarded as immoral by the hindu law and if the respondents, being grandsons of badri singh, were liable therefor to the extent of their interest in the joint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 1946 (PC)

Shibram Kairi Vs. Md. Masadar Ali and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-03-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Cal17

..... . the pretext for one has however been furnished by certain observations in both the courts to the effect that had the suit been brought within the purview of section 20, contract act, (that is, that both parties were under a bona fide mistake, on the material point already discussed, and that while one party imagined that the period expired on 30th .....

Tag this Judgment!


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