Kolkata Court March 1878 Judgments

Catchick and anr. Vs. Pogose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal709

Markby, J.1. In this case we think that the order of the Subordinate Judge, so far as it makes the present applicant, Mr. P. N. Pogose, a party to these execution proceedings, must be set aside.2. The original judgment-debtor was dead. He was an Armenian, and, therefore, succession to his estate is governed by the Succession Act, and the only person who could be his representative is the person indicated by that Act. The only difficulty at all about the matter is whether there is an appeal against this order of the Subordinate Judge or not. Whatever our own opinion may be, however, it is better that in this particular case we should follow the decision of Mr. Justice Ainslie and Mr. Justice Mc Donell given in a somewhat similar case on the, 28th August 1877, in which it was held that no appeal lies,[1] and for the purposes of this case adopting that decision, we hold that no appeal lies in this case also. But nevertheless, although no appeal lies, we think it clearly a case in which we...

Fleming and anr. Vs. Ralli and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this injunction was properly granted; but in order to make its meaning more clear, I think the form of it should be slightly modified.2. There is no doubt, I conceive, as to the law of the case; and there is but little difference between the parties as to the actual facts. The difficulty, if there be any, is to ascertain the fair and reasonable inference which we ought to draw from those facts. I propose dealing with the matter at this stage as shortly as I can, in order to avoid prejudicing the defendants' case at the hearing of the cause, when the Court may probably be supplied with fuller materials than it has at present for ascertaining the truth.3. For the present purpose it appears to me sufficiently established that the plaintiffs, Messrs. Nicol, Fleming, & Co. have, for several years past, been selling a particular cloth in the market, which has obtained celebrity there, and become readily saleable; that this cloth is known to the publ...

Monohur Doss Vs. Romanauth Law

Court: Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. The defendant does not deny the plaintiff's general right to an account of what is due under the mortgages, and to have the property sold; but he maintains (1) that lie ought not to pay compound interest, (2) that the bills of costs delivered in 1869 ought to be taxed, and (3) that the rate of interest was too high, and ought to be reduced.2. Before proceeding to deal with these particular questions, we may say generally, that there is no reason whatever to suppose that the plaintiff' intended to act dishonestly towards his client. The plaintiff had no doubt satisfied himself in his own mind, that if his client went elsewhere to borrow the money, he would not, on the whole, be so well off. We are quite willing to presume this in favour of an attorney of long standing and high character, such as the plaintiff is here. But, for the purposes of this suit, the question is, whether, having regard to the fiduciary relation between the parties, and the rule which the Cou...

Seth Gokul Dass Gopal Dass Vs. Murli and

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal603

B. Peacock, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces of India, in a suit instituted by the appellant against the respondents in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner of Jubbulpore, for the foreclosure of a mortgage.2. The following are the circumstances under which the mortgage was executed: On the 27th June 1859, the appellant obtained a decree in the Court of the Sudder Ameen of Jubbulpore against Tarapat Patel, malgumr of Khairi, the father of the defendants, for the sum of 9,413 rupees, 15 annas and 3 pies, being the balance of principal and interest due upon a bond executed by Tarapat, and the costs of suit. The decree was silent as to the payment of future interest on the amount decreed. 13y the bond upon which the decree was obtained, it was expressly stipulated that interest should be paid at the rate of 1 per cent, a month.3. Between the date of the decree and the 27th June 1865, the plaintiff endeavoured, on several occasions, ...

Abhassi Begum Vs. Moharanee Rajroop Koonwar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal33

Ainslie, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff against Mussamut Umda Khanum and her daughter Mussamut Abhassi Begum to recover Rs. 37,018-10-9 on a bond dated 19th September 1868 for Rs. 20,000, bearing interest at 15 per cent. per annum, which has accumulated until it now amounts to Rs. 17,018-10-9, such bond having been executed by the first defendant during the minority of her daughter on her own account and as guardian of her daughter.2. The bond contains a pledge of a five-sixth share of thirty-two villages, formerly belonging to Aga Wahid Ali Khan, the husband of Umda Khanum and father of Abhassi Begum, being the share which, under the Mahomedan law of inheritance, has descended to the two defendants jointly after deducting a one-sixth share taken by his mother.3. The bond recites that monies were due to Duli Chand under four decrees, all hearing date 12th May 1862, in respect of debts due by Aga Wahid Ali; and that the executant and her daughter were liable for the amount i...

Debendronath Mullick and ors. Vs. Odit Churn Mullick

Court: Kolkata

Pontifex, J.1. Was of opinion that the plaint did disclose a cause of action, and allowed other issues in the case to he settled....

Gopessur Mostofee and ors. Vs. Ramsoonder Sandyal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal716

Kemp, J.1. It is contended by the pleader for the special appellant that if the starting point is to be the application under Section 212, which was made on the 2nd of January 1869, then the present application having been made more than three years from that date is barred. On the other hand, it is contended by the pleader who appears for the respondent, that the application of the 6th of September 1873 is within time, as the last previous application was made on the 22nd of November 1870. That was an application to sell the interest of the judgment-debtor in a certain decree and certain specified properties.2. The pleader admits that this application of the 22nd November 1870 was not made under Section 212 of the Civil Procedure Code, but be says that it was an application 'to keep in force' the decree within the meaning of Article 167 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act as interpreted by the Full Bench in In re Chunder Coomar Roy v. Bhuggobutty Prasonno Roy I.L.R. 3 Calc. 235 : S.C...

Eliza Smith Vs. the Secretary of State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal341

Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Kennedy, dismissing an application made by the plaintiff under Section 63 of Act II of 1874.2. His Lordship considered that as a previous application of precisely the same nature had been made under the repealed Administrator-General's (Act (No. XXIV of 1867, Section 60) to enforce the same claim, and which had been heard and decided against the applicant, she was barred by Section 13 of the new Civil Procedure Code (Act X of 1877) from renewing the application.3. There is no doubt that, in the years 1871 and 1872, Mrs. Smith did apply to the Court under Act XXIV of 1867 to obtain the sum now claimed, which application was refused; and that, in the year 1873, another application for the same sum was made by her to Mr. Justice Macpherson, which was also refused.4. A further application for a review of his order was then made to Mr. Justice Pontifex, which was unsuccessful; and another similar application was afterw...

The Empress Vs. Butto Kristo Doss and anr.

Court: Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. We think it clear that the person appointed by the Government Solicitor, with the approval of the Government, to act as Government Prosecutor, under the arrangements made by the Governor-General in Council, is a public servant within the moaning of Section 21, Indian Penal Code....