Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Year: 1950 Page 18 of about 179 results (0.080 seconds)

Apr 11 1950 (HC)

Kamala Bai Ammal Vs. theethachari Alias Appu Rao and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-11-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad345; (1950)2MLJ286

..... or otherwise, but does not include rent as defined in clause (iv), or 'kanartham' asdefined in section 3 (1) (i), malabar tenancy act, 1929; section 7: notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of court to the contrary all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1950 (HC)

Synabhog Marthandu Rao (Died) Vs. Rao Bahadur Chenna Basappa Kuruba Go ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-31-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad388; (1950)2MLJ653

1. the plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal arises lost before the trial count but succeeded on appeal. the relevant facts are these:2. the plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant 3 for over rs. 9000 in the dharwar sub-court in the state of bombay and obtained an attachment before judgment of lands belonging to defendant 3 in harvi of the harpanahalli taluk of the district of bellary. the attachment was ordered on 12-11-1936 and was actually effected on 2-12-1936. defendant 3 on 4-11-1936, sold these lands to defendant 1 by a registered sale deed, ex. p-2, for rs. 600. defendant 1, in his turn, sold them to defendant 2 under ex. d-1, a registered sale deed, for rs. 800 on 30-7-1942. then the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the sale deeds exs. p-2 and d-1 were void, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on him. the finding of both the courts below is that the two alienations were brought about fraudulently to defeat, in anticipation, the attachment the plaintiff contemplated and further that in spite of these sale deeds defendant 3 continued to remain in possession and collected the rent.3. the points taken before me for defendant 2 the appellant, are firstly that the suit was barred by limitation and secondly that the suit, not having been instituted by the plaintiff in a representative capacity as required by section 53, t. p. act, ought to have been dismissed and thatthe application for amendment filed before the learned district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1950 (HC)

Sistla Yagnanarayana Sastri Vs. Chilukuri Lakshminarayana and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-30-1950

Reported in : AIR1952Mad495; (1951)IMLJ502

..... terms so far as they related to the suit, its jurisdiction being limited to an enquiry into the lawfulness of the compromise. the basis of the compromise was only the contract between the parties. article 125 would apply to a suit by a reversioner to have such a compromise which resulted in an alienation declared invalid. see 'ranga rao v. ranganayaki .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1950 (HC)

The Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue Vs. K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Mad738; (1950)IIMLJ213

horwill, j.1. we are here concerned with a reference made by the board of revenue under section 57, stamp act ii [2] of 1899 on a question of the stamp duty payable on a settlement deed.2. it is conceded that the document contains terms which make it a settlement deed and that for purposes of stamp duty it should be treated as such. under article 58, stamp act (schedule 1), the duty is to be the same as for a bond for a sum equal to the amount or 'value of the property settled as set forth in such settlement.' the real value of the property is admitted by the settlor to be rs. 2 lakhs; and since it is subject to a mortgage of one lakh of rupees, the value of the equity of redemption would be at least one lakh of rupees. the revenue authorities value it at rs. 1,59,300, the settlor did not in so many terms purport to give the real value of the property; because if he gave a false value, he would be liable to prosecution. so he tried to guard himself by saying, 'value for purposes of stamp and registration, rs. 3000'. he argued before the revenue authorities, as he did here, that he was entitled to put any notional value on the property. since however it was clear from the document itself that the property was worth agreat deal more than rs. 3000, the matter was referred by the registrar to the collector and by the collector to the board of revenue, which body, we are told, directed that the instrument should be registered and that proceedings should be taken against the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1950 (HC)

Dominion of India Vs. Gosto Behary Kundu

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-19-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Cal247,54CWN749

..... to the acts mentioned in the earlier sections and there can be no doubt that this section would govern a decree against the dominion of india for breach of a contract or negligence of a railway. that being so, the section requires that the decree should have on the face of it a time limit for its satisfaction. learned advocate for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 1950 (HC)

S.K. Chaudhuri Vs. Joy Kumar Sarkar

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-09-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Cal515,55CWN75

..... the benefit of the provisos from the tenant unless he fulfils certain conditions, under section 12 (4) (a) he must pay regularly by the fifteenth of the month or the contract date; under section 12 (4) in the case of arrears accrued before the commencement of the ordinance he must pay them up within one month of the data of commencement .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1950 (HC)

Harrison Road Properties Vs. Ramdhondas Jhajharia

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-26-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Cal225

..... expresses no opinion on the merits of the controversies between the parties and does not act in invitum but merely puts the agreement on the record of the court. a contract or an agreement is made thus between the parties which passes without alteration into the record of the court and specially as in this case with the express provision in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1950 (HC)

Province of Bengal Vs. Commissioner for the Port of Calcutta and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-06-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Cal271,55CWN350

..... vested under act iv [4] of 1869 in the secretary of state in the commissioners. section 34 required the assent in writing of the lieutenant governor to enter into a contract involving a likely payment of a sum in excess of rs. 50,000. section 35 required sanction of the lieutenant governor to a new work costing more than rs. 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1950 (HC)

Choudhary Vs. Devi Ram and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-26-1950

Reported in : AIR1951HP25

orderchowdhry, j. 1. this is a reference under section 438, criminal p. c. by the district magistrate of mahasu recommending that this court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, should set aside the order of a first class magistrate of solan acquitting the accused devi bam of cm offence punishable under section 498, penal code, and order his retrial.2. a complaint was filed by one chaudhari on 18-9-1948 that about 6 years ago the accused had enticed away the complainant's legally wedded wife mt. dilgiro, knowing her to foe the complainant's wife, and that he had been detaining her and having illicit intercourse with her. the accused admitted mt. dilgiro being the complainant's wife but he denied that he had enticed her, or had been detaining her, or that he had illicit intercourse with her. he stated that she was his wife's cousin and had come to his house in hia absence, and had been living there, of her own accord. he also stated that when she came to his house he had a report lodged in the police, and that as soon as his own wife died he gave complainant notice on 9-9-1948 to take mt. dilgiro away. the accused proved both the report and the notice and produced witnesses who supported the above contentions. one of them, also stated that, although requested several times during those 5 years, the complainant had refused to take back mt. dilgiro. among the witnesses produced by the complainant was mt. dilgiro, who, besides supporting the defence contentious, also .....

Tag this Judgment!


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