Kolkata Court September 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.
Anderson, Wright and Co. Vs. Kalagarla Surji Narain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal339
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The question referred to us in this case is, whether having regard to Section 43 of the Code this suit is maintainable. The facts are these:On the 8th of December 1882 the defendant contracted with the plaintiffs to purchase from them 10 bales of Turkey red yarn at a certain price.2. In February 1883 three of these bales were delivered and paid for.3. On the 21st of June 1883 the plaintiffs say that they delivered four more bales, and this action is brought for Rs. 1,683-8-0 being the contract price of those bales.4. On the 14th of August 1883 the plaintiffs sued the defendant to recover Rs. 166-10-3 as damages for the non-acceptance by the defendant of the remaining three bales, and on the 9th of January 1884, they obtained a decree for that sum.5. On the 11th of January 1884 the present suit was brought.6. A preliminary objection was taken, that the Court had no right to entertain the suit, inasmuch as the plaintiffs' present claim, and the claim in their former...
Krishnanund Das Vs. Hari Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal58
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In our opinion no notice is necessary to the person against whom it is intended to proceed, before the Court, before which the alleged offence has been committed, can, under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sanction a complaint being made to a Magistrate regarding one of the offences specified in that section....
Gonesh Dutt and ors. Vs. Abdul Hakim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal323
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The plaintiffs respondents are the owners of a mouzah called Kener. To the east of that mouzah lies chuck Jugmual, and to the east thereof is Lalpura, the defendants' mouzah. The Courts below have found that the land slopes from west to east, and the surplus rain-water of the plaintiffs' lands is drained through chuck Jugmual, and defendants' mouzah Lalpura which are lower in level than the plaintiffs' lands. It has been further found that this surplus rain-water is carried through a nigar or a natural outlet which falls into a natural water-course called Samdahain, This river Samdabain passes through the defendants' mouzah Lalpura, and flows towards the east. There is another river called the Chandimohan, which also is wholly situated in the defendants' mouzah. The confluence of these two rivers is to the east of that point in the river Samdahain where the outlet mentioned from the plaintiffs' lands joins it. The lower Courts have further found that the pr...
E.W. Hart Vs. E.G. BuskIn and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal192
Wilson, J.1. The facts of this case are these: The petitioner Mr. Buskin was the holder of a monthly ticket entitling him to travel on the Eastern Bengal State Railway between Barrackpore and Sealdah. On the morning of the 29th June last, he travelled by a train from Barrackpore to Sealdah. Being asked while in the train by a ticket-collector in the service of the railway administration to show his ticket, he was unable to do so, having accidentally left it at his house in Barrackpore. The ticket-collector asked him to pay his fare and he refused. The fare from Barrackpore to Sealdah was fourteen annas. The ticket-collector knew that Mr. Buskin held a monthly ticket.2. Application was made to the Police Magistrate of Sealdah by the Station Master of Sealdah for a summons against Mr. Buskin, in respect of a charge of having travelled without a ticket, and when asked to pay his fare refusing to do so, Sections 17 and 31 of the Indian Bail way Act (IV of 1879) being referred to. After som...
Smith Vs. Dinonath Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal213
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The (plaintiff): appellant seeks to recover from the (defendants) respondents the sum of Rs. 1,035-4-3 under the following circumstances:The appellant is the putnidar of certain mouzahs appertaining to a share of Taruff Shyampur, in respect of which the respondents, the owners thereof, have caused a separate account to be opened for the payment of the Government revenue either under s, 10 or Section 11 of Act XI of 1859. The whole of this revenue or a portion thereof not having been paid for several years past by the respondents, and the appellant having paid the same, the present suit was brought for the recovery of the amount so paid with interest.2. The lower Courts have held that the appellants are not entitled to recover, taking the facts set forth above to be correct.3. The Subordinate Judge who has decided this case in the Original Court was of opinion that the appellant was not interested in the payments which he made, because, if the share of the r...
Kashy Nath Roy Chowdhry Vs. Surbanand Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal317
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The question which we have to determine in this case is, whether the kobala, dated 25th August 1875, executed by Chunder Mohun Sen, ancestor of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and Sriram Chuckerbutty defendant No. 4, in favour of defendants 5 to 10, of mouzah Baligram, was invalid under Section 240 of Act VIII of 1859, it being a private alienation by the judgment-debtor while the property was alleged to be under attachment.2. The facts, as found by the Mnnsif in this case, are as follows:3. The property in dispute, viz., a 10-gunda share of taluk Mohadeb Munshi was the property of defendant No. 1. Two persons, viz., Hurrish Chundra Kurmokar and Shama Churn Bhundopadhya; held money decrees against the defendant No. 1. Hurrish Ghunder attached the property in dispute on the 12th June 1875. While it was under this attachment, it was sold in execution of Shama Churn's decree on the 9th July 1875 and purchased by Chunder Mohun Sen, ancestor of defendants Nos. 2 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›