Kolkata Court February 1881 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Morgan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal633
Phillips, J.1. Section 23 of the Insolvent Act does not affect the mortgagee. This case comes within the principle laid down in Reynolds v. Bowley (L. R., 2 Q. B., 474; in the Court below, Id., 41), which decides, that where one partner allows the other, bond fide, to carry on the business ostensibly as his own, on the bankruptcy of the latter, the share of the dormant partner in the partnership stock-in-trade cannot be dealt with as in the possession, order, or disposition of the bankrupt as reputed owner with the consent of the true owner. Here Smith was not insolvent at the time of the insolvency of the other partners. In Ex parte Dorman (L. R., 8 Ch., 51), the Lords Justices held, that the clause relating to goods in the possession, order, or disposition of a bankrupt is confined to cases where the bankrupt is in the sole possession of goods as the sole reputed owner; and they say,-'It is obvious that if the clause was held to apply to every case where goods, with the permission of...
Bibee Solomon Vs. Abdool Azeez and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal687
Pontifex, J.1. The plaintiff is a minor, and sues by her next friend to set aside a compromise sanctioned by this Court in a former suit.2. In that suit her title was stated in the following way:One Sudickjee, of Cashmere, carried on large business operations in Calcutta, other parts of British India, and Cashmere. He died, nearly fifty years ago, intestate. His business was carried on in partnership with Khajah Mussijee and Koodoor Mullick. He left two sons, Khaluckjee and Ackbarjee, and a daughter, Fatima, who was the wife of his partner Khajah Mussijee.3. That, after Sudickjee's death, his son Ackbarjee had charge of the Calcutta business.4. That Khajah Mussijee died in 1854, having bequeathed the residue of his estate to his son Khajah Moheeoodeen and Khaluckjee. That Khaluckjee died in 1859 intestate, leaving Ackbarjee one of his heirs.5. That Ackbarjee died in 1868 having been jointly interested in the business with Khaluckjee and Khajah Mussijee up to the death of the latter; an...
The Empress Vs. M.J. Vyapoory Moodeliar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal655
Garth, C.J. and Maclean, J.1. The prisoner in this case was tried before the Special Court at Rangoon upon three charges for receiving money illegally as a public servant, contrary to the provisions of Section 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The transactions upon which the charges were based are all said to have occurred in the year 1876, and the nature of them was, that the prisoner, being then the managing clerk in the commissariat office of Tonghoo, where Messrs. Cohen Brothers carried on business as Commissariat contractors, accepted certain remuneration from Messrs. Cohen for services, which he is said to have rendered them in his official capacity.3. The case for the prosecution was that these services were rendered, and the remuneration received, by the prisoner under some arrangement, which existed between the parties in the year 1876, but which came to an end in January 1877.4. In the year 1877, the prisoner was transferred to the Commissariat office at Thayetmyo; and ...
Mahomed Hamidulla Khan Vs. Lotful Huq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal744
Morris, J.1. There is no question that Moulvi Golam Sharuff executed the document styled a 'waqfnama,' which bears date 1st Bhadro 1248. The only question raised in this appeal is, whether the four annas, or rather the fourth share of the property which he appropriated under that deed to his daughter Budrunnessa, is, under Mahomedan law, a valid ' waqf,' or, in other words, that it is inalienable and incapable of being attached and sold in execution of a decree against Budrunnessa.2. The Subordinate Judge, relying upon a passage which is to be found in page 571 of Baillie's Digest of Mahomedan Law, is of opinion, that the 'defendant No. 1, Budrunnessa, became absolutely vested in the two annas share out of the eight annas share of Kantabari, and so it became heritable and alienable.' The passage in question is in these terms:-'If one should say, this my land is a sadukah settled on my child, and child of my child, the child of his loins, and the child, of his child in existence on the ...
Annoda Persad Roy Vs. Dwarkanath Gangopadhya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal754
Field, J.1. We think that the decree of the District Judge in this case cannot be sustained. It is quite possible that the plaintiff has not properly conceived, or correctly stated in his plaint, the exact remedy to which he is entitled; but we think, having regard to the whole of the circumstances of the case, and the inexact practice prevalent in the mofussil in this class of cases, that the plaintiff ought not to be denied any remedy whatever. In his plaint he states (and on this point there is no dispute) that the defendant was in his employment from September 1875 to May 1879. He states, further, that the defendant has not submitted to him proper accounts of his agency; and in the 9th para, he asks that a decree be passed to the effect that the defendant No. 1 do submit the nikas papers called for agreeably to the provisions of the kabuliat executed by him. The plaint then goes on to ask that, on failure to submit the said accounts, the defendant may be decreed to pay him Es. 1,20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›