Kolkata Court July 1875 Judgments
Hyder Ali Vs. Jafar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal183
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The Judge of the Small Cause Court is right in thinking that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction, as the suit is clearly one which might and ought to have been brought under Section 98 of Bengal Act VIII of 1869....
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Chunder Dey Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal12
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, who, for some years previously to March 1874, appears to have been a retail dealer in sidhi and other excisable articles at Calcutta, against the Secretary of State for India in Council; and the object of the suit was to establish certain claims against the Government of India, the nature of which was not very clearly denned either in the plaintiff's statement or in the evidence.2. It is unnecessary, however, in the view which we have taken of the case, to enter into all the circumstances, which have been so carefully considered and commented on by the learned Judge in the Court below. Suffice it to say that, in substance, the plaintiff puts his claim in this way: He says--At the public auction, which was held by the Government officer on the 4th of March 1874, of licenses to sell certain excisable liquors and drugs, I became the highest bidder for the right to sell such liquors and drugs at five different shops at Calcutt...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gunput NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal74
Glover, J.1. Against this order the petitioner has appealed, and in support of his contention Baboo Kalimohun Doss has drawn our attention to certain texts of Hindu law as set out in Menu, to show that betrothal is really a marriage, and that a girl once promised to a particular man could not be given in marriage to another; we have also been referred to 1 Strange's Hindu Law, Macnaghten's Hindu Law, and Colebrooke's Digest.2. The right of the petitioner to have an injunction pendente lite depends on the nature of the remedy which a Civil Court would give in the suit, and if it could be shown that a decree for specific performance would necessarily follow proof of the petitioner's betrothal to the girl, an injunction might properly be granted, as without it the suit might, and very probably would, be infructuous.3. But I agree with the Subordinate Judge that Section 93, Civil Procedure Code, was never meant to apply to cases like this. As a general rule, a decree for specific performan...
Tag this Judgment!In the Goods Of: Shamachurn Mullick Deceased; in Re: Rajranee Dossee a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal53
R. Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that Markby, J., was perfectly right in refusing this application. It was not made to him in the form in which it is now made to us, to amend the original grant of probate. The application to him, the only one which can properly be made the subject of appeal to us, was for the purpose of obtaining in this Court a limited grant of probate, extending to goods in the presidency of Bombay; and the question is, whether Act XIII of 1875 enabled Markby, J., to make an order of that kind. I am of opinion that it did not. The Act, no doubt, was intended to remedy some of the inconveniences pointed out by Mr. Jackson. The preamble recites the purpose for which it was passed. It says that, 'whereas, under the Indian Succession Act, 1865, the effect of an unlimited grant of probate made by any Court in British India is confined to the Province in which such grant is made; and that it is expedient to extend over British India the effect of such grants, when made by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›