Kolkata Court January 1886 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.
J. Bruce Vs. C. Cronin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal438
Cunningham and Ghose, JJ.1. We agree with the Magistrate in the view he has taken of this matter. The amendment of Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 243 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vic. c. 104) by 43 & 44 Vic. c. 16, does not, in our opinion, affect the liability of seamen in Calcutta, under Section 83 of Act I of 1859, to imprisonment. Had any such change been intended, it would doubtless have been expressly enacted in Act V of 1883, passed subsequent to the above Act 43 & 44 Vic. c. 16 which in Sections 35, 36 and 37 amends some portions of Act I of 1859....
Opendro Nath Ghose Vs. Dukhini Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal473
Richard Garth, C.J., Mitter, Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. The question submitted to us for determination is whether a Magistrate of the first class is a Criminal Court inferior to the Magistrate of the district, within the meaning of Section 436 of the Code.2. The learned Judges who have made this reference to a Full Bench were induced to do so, because of the importance of the question, and because the existing rulings of this Court in Nobin Kristo Mookerjee v. Russick Lall Laha I.L.R. 10 Cal. 268 and in Queen-Empress v. Nowab Jan I.L.R. 10 Cal. 551 followed as they were by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Jhinguri v. Bachu I.L.R. 7 All. 134 by a single Judge, were found to be in conflict with later rulings on the same paint by the High Courts of Madras and Bombay as reported in the cases of In the matter of the petition of Padmanabha I.L.R. 8 Mad. 18, and Queen-Empress v. Pirya Gopal I.L.R. 9 Bom. 100. The ruling by the High Court of Madras was that of a Full Bench.3. And it...
Dhumee Behara Vs. C.H.C. Sevenoaks
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal80
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We think that the rule laid down by the Judges of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes is correct, and that the same rule is applicable to the Mofussil. An old Regulation (Regulation VII of 1819) provided that in such cases fifteen days notice should be given by either party wishing to terminate the contract, and that in default of notice fifteen days pay should be preferred. But that Regulation has been repealed, and in the absence of any legislative enactment on the subject, we think that the Calcutta rule is generally and correctly followed....
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Judah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal445
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think this is a very plain case; and I entirely agree with the Court below that the rule should be discharged.The question is, whether the debt owing by the defendant, and which he desires to insert in his schedule, is a Crown-debt within the meaning of Section 62 of the Insolvent Act.2. Here the learned Judge set out the facts of the case.3. The only question therefore is, whether this is or is not a Crown-debt. In my opinion it is clearly a Crown-debt. It is admitted that the opium which was sold belonged to the Crown; and it is also admitted that this very debt, when recovered, would belong to the Crown; but it is contended that, in the meantime, the promissory notes sued upon which were given by the defendant to the Secretary of State were so given to him, not on behalf of the Crown, but as of a body corporate of a special character; and although he may be a trustee for the Government, he is not an officer of the Crown in such sort, as that the debt which is...
Sheo Pergash Tewari Vs. Bukshi Ram Pergash Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal453
Mitter and Agnew, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Shahabad remanding the suit to the Court of First Instance which had dismissed it, on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act. The Judge was of opinion that the suit was not so barred. The plaintiff alleged that defendants Nos. 5 and 6 executed a mortgage in his favour in the month of Aughran 1278, hypothecating the land in suit as collateral security for the money taken under the mortgage deed; that he obtained a decree against defendants Nos. 5 and 6, and in execution of it attached the property in dispute. It appears that before the property in dispute was so attached it had been sold in execution of a decree obtained by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 against defendants Nos. 5 and 6, and purchased by the decree-holders themselves, viz., defendants Nos. 1 to 4.2. Upon the plaintiff proceeding to sell the attached property defendants Nos. 1 to 4 interv...
Haridas Senyal and ors. Vs. Pran Nath Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal566
Tottenham, J.1. This was a suit for the partition of a khanabari belonging to the parties in this suit. The defendants objected that, if this particular khanabari only were partitioned, the result would be serious to them; that there are two other khanabaris adjoining the one in question, and that the partition ought to be applied to them also as well as to other joint-family property. The lower Appellate Court has decided that this suit for partition of this single khanabari could not be maintained, and has dismissed it.2. We think that the weight of authority is in favour of the lower Appellate Court's decision. The cases are quoted by Mr. Mayne in his book on Hindu Law (See Mayne's Hindu Law, Section 417, 3rd Ed., p. 469). In the present instance we think that the decision of the Court below is reasonable as well as in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›