Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1956 Page 4 of about 332 results (0.034 seconds)

Nov 28 1956 (HC)

General Papers Limited Vs. A.P.A. Pakkir Mohideen and Brothers

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-28-1956

Reported in : (1958)1MLJ294

panchapakesa iyer, j.1. this is an appeal by the general papers limited, madras, defendants in o.s. no. 43 of 1951 on the file of the principal subordinate judge of tirunelveli, against the judgment and decree therein.2. that was a suit filed against them by one pakir mohideen and others of kadianallur for recovering from them rs. 6,781-12-0 with subsequent interests and costs. the story of the plaintiffs was briefly this.3. on 1st march, 1950, the plaintiffs' agent, annamalai nadar, placed an order exhibit b-1 with the defendants for 7 bales 308 reams of imitation glassine paper worth rs. 4,499-11-o. on 6th march, 1950, he placed an order for 3 bales of coloured transparent paper worth rs. 1,454-11-0, under exhibit b-2. both these orders were placed by him after inspecting the stock of such paper with defendants, and approving of their quality but without separating the bales covered by the two contracts from the general stock with the defendants. the prices were ex-godown madras, and the goods were to be despatched by railway to sattur railway station. the packing and forwarding charges and sales tax were to be paid extra by the buyers. the entire price and charges were to be paid by the plaintiffs at tenkasi within the jurisdiction of the lower court, through the south india bank, ltd., the appellants sent both the consignments together by railway to sattur consigned to self, and not to the plaintiffs, on 7th march, 1950, as per exhibit a-2. the invoice for the goods came .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1956 (HC)

L. Manohar Lal Nathan Mal Vs. Madan Lal Murari Lal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-02-1956

Reported in : AIR1956P& H190

orderfalshaw, j.1. the circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are as follows. the respondent madan lal jain was a tenant of the petitioner manohar lal jain in certain premises at a monthly rent of rs. 75/-. the latter instituted al suit for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had not paid the rent for the months of march and april 1953 amounting to rs. 150/-. he did not, however, add any claim for the recovery of the sum due as an early stage before filing his written statement, though not actually on his first appearance in the suit, the defendant deposited in court the sum of rs. 150/- together with costs. in his written statement he contended that the rent of the premises was excessive and asked the court to fix the standard rent and also claimed that he was entitled to be credited for a sum of rs. 50/- which he had spent on repairs.2. the trial court framed the issues :1. whether the defendant has deposited the arrears of rent and costs due within the time allowed by the court? if so, how does it affect the suit? 2. whether the defendant is liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent? 3. what is the standard rent? 4. whether the defendant has done repairs? if so, what, and whether he is entitled to charge the same from the plaintiff without payment of court-fee? 3. at a subsequent stage the plaintiff challenged the framing of issues 3 and 4 and applied for them to be deleted. the trial court took the view that since the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1956 (HC)

Jaipal Singh and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-05-1956

Reported in : AIR1956All698

mootham, c.j.1. this petition, which has been referred to a bench by mr. justice chaturvedi raises a question or law of some difficulty. the relevant facts can be stated very shortly.2. the petitioners filed a suit against respondents 2 to 16 under section 59, u. p. tenancy act, 1939. the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the decree of that court was affirmed by the additional commissioner, agra division, on appeal. the petitioners then filed a second appeal before the first respondent, the board of revenue. the board allowed the appeal, the judgment of sri s.s. hasan, before whom the appeal was argued, being dated 1-8-1952, and a second judicial member, sri r.n. singh, concurring therein on 4-8-1952.3. the respondents then filed an application before the board under section 273, u. p. tenancy act, for review. the review application was decided by the two judicial members who had earlier decided the appeal and was allowed, the judgment of sri s.s. hasan, which was dated 16-10-1952, receiving the concurrence of sri r.n. singh on 28th october following. thereafter the appeal was again heard on its merits and was dismissed by sri s.s. hasan on 6-2-1953.4. the petitioners thereupon filed this petition, their contention being that under section 273, u. p. tenancy act, the review application ought to have been decided by all the members of the board. they pray for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' quashing the order of the board dated 16/18-10-1952 16/18-10-1952 , and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1956 (HC)

Karamchand Pessumal Vs. Madhavdas Savaldas and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-15-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom669; (1956)58BOMLR754; ILR1956Bom839

chagla, c.j. 1. a short but rather interesting question as to the proper construction of section 10, displaced persons (debt adjustment) act, 1951 arises on this appeal, and the only facts that are necessary to state for the determination of this question are that the appellant filed an application under section 10 before the tribunal, who was the judge of the city civil court, claiming partnership account from the respondents who were his partners, on the basis of the partnership being dissolved in july 1949, and also claiming to receive moneys found due and payable to him on taking such accounts. now, if this had been a suit the suit would have been obviously described as a suit for taking partnership accounts of a dissolved partnership, and the question that falls to be determined by us is whether under section 10 an application can be made of the nature made by the appellant in this case. the learned judge below took the view that the petition did not lie and dismissed it, and the appellant has now come in appeal.2. section 10, which calls for construction at our hands, is in the following terms :'any displaced person having a claim against a displaced debtor may make an application in such form as may be prescribed, for the determination thereof to the tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the displaced debtor actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, together with a statement of the debts owed to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1956 (HC)

Varki Chacko Vs. Ouseph Pramena

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-05-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker48

i.k. joseph, j. 1. this appeal arises out of a suit by the representatives of a prior mortgagee-auction-purchaser for recovery of possession of mortgaged property from the representative of the puisne mortgagee-auction-purchaser, on payment of the mortgage money. the facts necessary for the decision of the appeal may be briefly stated.2. the property which is the subject-matter of the suit belonged to one mathen augusthy of pulickal. on 20-3-1088 he executed a simple mortgage in favour of one chandy devasia who sued on it in o. s. no. 234 of 1099 and obtained a decree (ext. b) on 18-4-1099. in execution of the decree be purchased the property on 21-10-1101 and then transferred the same under ext. aa dated 26-2-1102 to one. mathoo mathai who obtained a record of delivery (ext. c) dated 27-3-1103. at the time of institution of that: suit there were three later mortgages one of which was a usufructuary mortgage (ext. h) dated 22-9-1093 in favour of one mathoo devasia who had sub-mortgaged the same on the usufructuary mortgagee was not a party to o. s. no. 234 of 1099, mathoo matbai could not get effective physical possession under ext. c. the other two mortgages were two sknple mortgages of 1092 and 1095 in favour of one narayana iyer, charging the plaint property and another, narayana iyer instituted a suit, o. s. no. 150 of 1101 against mathen augusthy the mortgagor and mathoo devassia the usufructuary mortgagee, and obtained a decree, copy of which has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1956 (HC)

Michael Anthony Rodrigues Vs. State of Bombay and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom501

1. this is a petition impugning a certain order passed by the under-secretary to government under the foreigners act (31 of 1946) calling upon the petitioner to leave india within 24 hours of the service of that order upon him. the order is made under the foreigners act, and 'foreigner' is defined by section 2, which says that a 'foreigner' means a person who is not a natural-born subject of india and has not been granted a certificate of naturalization as a subject of india under any law for the time being in force. it is not denied that the petitioner was born in goa.2. in his petition, however, he says that he came from goa as far as 1927 with the intention of settling down in india permanently. if that were right he was rather a precautious child having decided to change his domicile at the age of ten. but mr. madon concedes that this sentence is unhappily drafted and it does not mean what' it says.according to the petitioner he started his schooling here and he has produced a school-leaving certificate from the st. xavier's high school. he says that thereafter he started the business of tailoring with his father peter rodrigues. he did this business for some time and from 1942 to 1946 he was a wireless operator with the royal indian air force. he has produced a certificate showing his discharge from that force. thereafter he says that ho was employed in bombay by messrs. turner morison & co. ltd. up to september 1948 and thereafter he again resumed his father's business. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1956 (HC)

Hiralal Barman and ors. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Hathras and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-09-1956

Reported in : AIR1956All428

mehrotra, j.1. this is an application under article 226 of the constitution praying that (1) a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the realisation proceedings before the sub-divisional officer, hathras, regarding the arrears of sales tax against messrs ramchand spinning and weaving mills, hathras, district aligarh. (2) that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite party not to enforce the demand of sales tax by arrest of the applicants or attachment for sale of their personal properties. (3) a writ of prohibition be issued directing the opposite parties to refrain from arresting the applicants or attaching or selling their personal properties in enforcement of demands of sales tax against. messrs ramchand spinning and weaving mills, hathras. 2. there is a registered partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of messrs ramchand spinning and weaving mills, mursan gate, hathras, district aligarh. the firm owns the mills and deals in cloth, arid yarn after manufacturing the same. the partners of the firm are shri hira lal barman, jawaharlal, rajendra kumar, virendra kurnar and manikchand, shrimati satyavati devi and shri naridlal barman.the partnership firm was running the mills. returns for the sale of the goods for the year 1951-52 were submitted to the sale tax officer, hathras and a sum of rs. 102386/- was the amount of tax levied against the firm. something was paid by the firm. returns for 1952-53 were also submitted in due time and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1956 (HC)

Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1957All205

mootham, c.j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution challenging the validity of an order of the board of revenue dated the 17th-18th july 1956. 2. the facts are these. on the 3rd of january 1955 the second respondent made an application under section 34 of the united provinces land revenue act to the tahsildar of koil, in the district of aligarh, that her name be entered in the annual register maintained under that act as being in possession of a particular holding as the successor of one smt. dewalia deceased. the application was opposed by the petitioner who claimed to be the true owner, but an order was made by the tahsildar directing that mutation of names be effected as asked for by the second respondent. that order was however set aside by the commissioner on appeal by the petitioner. the second respondent then filed an application in revision before the board of revenue; and the board by the order which is now being challenged allowed the application, set aside the order of the additional commissioner and restored that of the tahsildar. 3. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the board of revenue in passing this order exceeded its jurisdiction, it has however been the consistent practice of this court not to interfere with orders made by the board of revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. that record is primarily maintained for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 1956 (HC)

Chini Mill Mazdoor Union, Ghughli District, Gorakhpur Vs. J.N. Khanna, ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-03-1956

Reported in : AIR1956All367

agarwala, j. 1. this is a special appeal against th judgment of a learned single judge of this court arising out of a writ petition in an industrial dispute matter. the appellant is the union of workmen employed by the punjab sugar mills ltd,, ghughli, in the district of gorakhpur. certain workers which were in the employ of the mills were dismissed by it whereupon they raised a dispute. there was a settlement according to which the retrenched employees were to be re-employed either by the mills or by a co-operative society of cane growers called the cane development union. in spite of this agreement the dispute did not come to an end as about 130 employees still remained unemployed. the president of the appellant union, therefore, filed an application before the regional conciliation board on 20-4-1953. for settling the industrial dispute about the rein-statement of 130 discharged workers. in thisapplication the request was that the board mightdecide the question of the reinstatement of those 130 workmen to their old jobs with full wages for the period of their unemployment and due consideration for other amenities. the board was subsequently constituted but as no conciliation could be effected between the parties the board submitted a report to the government. the government thereupon issued the following notification on 30-7-1953, under the powers conferred upon it by sections 3, 4 and 8, u. p. industrial disputes act, and in pursuance of the provisions of clause 10 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1956 (HC)

L. Pyare Lal Vs. Governor-general of India in Council

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-18-1956

Reported in : AIR1957All21

mootham, c.j.1. this is a second appeal by a plaintiff from a judgment and decree of the learned civil judge of etawah dated 2-6-1947, which has been referred to a bench by a learned single judge.2. the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant against the governor general of india-in-council for the recovery of rs. 2,691 as damage for loss of part of a consignment of ghee. on 5-5-1944, the appellant sent 319 tins of ghee from etawah to bardwan by the east india railway. the goods were sent under two risk notes, in forms a and z respectively.when the train reached bardwan on 17th may it was found that 7 tins were missing altogether, that 16 tins were empty and that 19 were of short weight. the trial court gave the appellant a decree for rs. 2,659-2-0, but on appeal the lower appellate court modified the decree as it was of opinion that the appellant was only entitled to recover from the respondent the value of the 7 tins which had been wholly lost. it accordingly substituted for the decree of the trial court a decree for rs. 514-2-0.3. there has been some discussion before us as to whether the liability of the railway administration was to be determined on the basis of the risk note in form a or of the risk note in form z, and it is the appellant's case that the latter is the risk note which embodied the contract between the parties. i do not propose to say anything about the risk note' in form a as in my opinion the appeal must fail even if the risk note in form z .....

Tag this Judgment!

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