Kolkata Court April 1885 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: William Hastie, an Insolvent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal451
Norris, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: On the 12th February 1885, the defendant was arrested under a warrant to satisfy the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 3,000 as damages, and Rs. 12,000 costs under a decree dated 16th April 1884.2. The defendant was brought before a Judge on his arrest when, in compliance with the provisions of Section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he was informed that he might apply under Chapter XX of the Civil Procedure Code to be declared an insolvent; he did not express his intention so to do, and was, therefore, committed to prison.3. On the 11th of March, the defendant, being still in prison, presented a petition to be declared an insolvent under Chapter XX. The petition complied with all the requirements of Sections 344, 345, and 346, and, at the conclusion thereof, the defendant prayed that, pending the hearing of the petition, he might be released from custody on his furnishing proper and sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Regist...
Ashanullah Vs. Noor Ali Mian Khondkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal608
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case I entirely agree with the learned pleader, who has argued the case for the appellant, that if the question before us had been merely one of fact this Court would not have been justisfied in interfering with the finding of the lower Court. We have always in this Bench adhered most strictly to that rule. Unless we could see that the lower Court had either committed some error of law, or had been under some misapprehension of law, we have always refused to interfere.2. But it seems to me that, in this ease, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge has proceeded upon a misapprehension of the law.3. The question was, as to whether the notice of enhancement was properly served under Section 14 of the Kent Law (Bengal Act VIII of 1869); and it seems that two witnesses were called to prove the proper service. One was the peon who was employed to serve it, and the other was the person who had to identify the defendant and the house in which he lived.4. The first ...
Bussunteram Marwary Vs. KamaluddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal421
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, one Bussunteram Marwary, against Sheik Kamaluddin, the grandson, and three ladies, being the grand-daughters of, and heirs to, the estate left by one Furzund Ali. There was also another defendant in the suit, viz., one Azeezunissa; but we think we may discard her from our consideration, because, as disclosed in the judgment of the Court of First Instance, her husband, Yusoof Ali, the son of the said Furzund Ali, predeceased his father, and therefore she (Azeezunnissa) could not rank as an heir.2. The suit was instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,758-12-8 due upon a roka said to have been executed by the said Furzund Ali; and the plaint alleged that, ' after his death, the defendants, his 'heirs,' were in possession of his estate,' and asked that judgment might be given for the money 'against the estate of Furzund Ali, ancestor of'the defendants.'3. The defendant No. 1, Kamaluddin, raised no other defence than tha...
Nagendra Nath Mitter Mozumdar Vs. Nitye Gopal Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal429
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by one Nagendra Nath for letters of administration in respect of the will said to have been executed by one Madhusudan Sircar on the 16th of Srabun 1279. The application was opposed by one Nitye Gopal Sircar, who contended that the said will was not duly executed by the said Madhusudan. The Court below has held that the document is genuine, and that it was executed according to the formalities prescribed by law; and, being of that opinion, has granted letters of administration to Nagendra Nath.2. The objector has appealed to this Court. There were two main questions raised by the learned vakeel who appeared for the appellant-first, that the will was not genuine; and, second, that none of the attesting witnesses having signed the document, but having simply put their marks against their names written by somebody else, there was no sufficient compliance with the rules prescribed by Section 50 of the Succession Act, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›