Kolkata Court April 1886 Judgments

Wallis and ors. Vs. Taylor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal37

Pigot, J.1. It appears to us clear that the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction in such a case as the present.2. By the Small Cause Court Act, jurisdiction is expressly conferred on Small Cause Courts, in cases the facts of which are such as those appearing here; and all that has to be considered in this case is, whether there is any provision in the Army Act of 1881 which takes away that jurisdiction.3. We are of opinion that there is none. The doubt which has been felt in the matter arises from its being apparently supposed, that the words 'shall be cognizable' in Section 151 of the Army Act, mean 'shall be cognizable only.'4. We are of opinion that there is nothing in that section of the Army Act, either in express words or by reasonable inference, to lead us to believe that it was the intention of the legislature in that section to affect the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts. We therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.5. We think it desirable to add tha...

In Re: the Kondoli Tea Co. Ld.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal43

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question in this case is, whether a document carrying out a particular transaction is a conveyance within the meaning of the definition contained in Clause 9 of Section 3 of the Stamp Act, and within the meaning of Article 21 of Schedule I of that Act.2. The document, upon the face of it, professes to be a conveyance of a tea garden from eight gentlemen to the Kondoli Tea Company, Limited, in consideration of 43,320, the said consideration being payable in shares and debentures of the company taken at par.3. It is said that that is not what the real transaction is; because the only shareholders in the Kondoli Tea Company are the eight gentlemen who conveyed the estate, and that therefore it was not really a conveyance or transfer by way of sale, but a mere handing over of the property from them in one name to themselves under another name.4. I think that is a fallacy. Whoever the shareholders in the Kondoli Tea company, Limited, were, I think the Kondoli T...

Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Judah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal652

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I think this application must be refused. It is an application made under these circumstances. The plaintiff obtained a decree on the Original Side of this Court as long ago as the beginning of the year for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,14,500 from the defendant, and in execution of that decree obtained an order for the arrest of the defendant, and issued a warrant to the Sheriff for his arrest, and by the terms of the warrant, the defendant was directed to be arrested or imprisoned on or before the 20th of February. In accordance with that warrant the Sheriff of Calcutta arrested the defendant on the 11th of February and lodged him in prison. Having done that the Sheriff had done his duty, and the defendant was in the custody of the jailor under the jurisdiction of the Court. That being the state of things, proceedings were taken at the instance of the defendant to obtain his discharge from imprisonment by the machinery provided for in the insolvency section...

Hukum Chand Aswal Vs. Gyanendra Chunder Lahiri (Minior) by His Guardia ...

Court: Kolkata

Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decisions of the lower Courts passed in execution of a decree which was transferred from the Civil Court in Cooch Behar.2. The lower Courts have decided that the decree is barred by limitation, but we are of opinion that they had no jurisdiction to execute the decree in question. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure under which a Court in British India is competent to execute a decree transferred to it by any Court in a Native State out of British India.3. That being so, the decree-holder, who is the appellant before us, has mistaken his remedy. The application for execution should have been dismissed on the ground that the Courts in British India have no power to execute a decree passed by the Courts of a Foreign State.4. The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs....