Kolkata Court August 1889 Judgments
Jadu Rai and ors. Vs. Bhubotaran Nundy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal173
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an action to recover damages for the breach of a contract to deliver a quantity of Furrakawa copper, and it is admitted that, if the plaintiffs are entitled to recover at all, the amount of damages is Rs. 3,834-2-6, what the plaintiffs claim in the plaint.2. The facts of the case are as follows: On the 23rd of July 1887, the defendants bought of Messrs. Ralli Brothers' 100 tons, more or less, Japan copper, Furrakawa, for July shipment, at Rs. 21-2 per maund. They afterwards instructed one Madun Chand, a broker, to make re-sales of the copper on their behalf; and it was stated by the witnesses for the defendants that, when the defendants gave the broker his instructions, they, after the rates had been fixed, told him that the buyers would get delivery of the copper as often as the defendants got delivery from Ralli Brothers. If the defendants got delivery all at once, they would give delivery all at once; if the defendants got delivery by two instalment...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Kishore Acharjea Chowdhry Vs. Dinanath Chuckerbutty Chowdhry and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal281
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Gordon, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca directing him to pay to the decree-holders the sum of Rs. 7,417-8 as mesne profits.2. It appears that a commission was issued by the Court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to the Civil Court Ameen, directing him to bold a local investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of mesne profits payable by the Judgment-debtor, and to report thereon to the Court. The Ameen completed his investigation and submitted his report, which was tiled with the record, without any objection being taken to it by either party. He assessed the mesne profits at Rs. 3,496. Subsequently, when the case came on for hearing, it was found that the decree-holders had failed as ordered by the Court to deposit the excess Court-fees, amounting to Rs. 102, payable on account of the remuneration of the Ameen, and accordingly the Subordinate Judge, relying a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rash Behari Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal209
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Trevelyan while sitting as Commissioner in Insolvency, and by which he committed two persons, who were insolvents and within the jurisdiction of the Court, to be imprisoned on the criminal side of the jail for a period of one year. That order was made by the learned Judge under the provisions of Section 50 of the Insolvent Act, and it is necessary to examine, for the purpose of what I have to say, the provisions of that section rather closely. That section provides 'and be it enacted that in case it shall appear to any Court for the relief of insolvent debtors that any such insolvent has fraudulently, with the intent to conceal the state of his affairs, or to defeat the objects of this Act, destroyed or otherwise wilfully prevented or purposely withheld the production of any book, paper or writing relating to such of his affairs as are subject to investigation under this Act, or kept or caused to be kest false boo...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kinkur Roy and anr., Administrator to the Estate of the Late H ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal273
W. Comer Petheram, Knight, C.J. and Ghose, J.1. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge, so far as the facts found by him are concerned, is not impeached before us. But what was contended for the appellants was that, in so much as, under Section 179 of the Succession Act, the plaintiff is the legal representative of Hurro Mohun, and all the property left by him has vested in him, and because, under Section 187 of the Succession Act, he was not competent to establish his right in a Court until letters of administration were obtained, and that such letters have been obtained within twelve years before suit, the plaintiffs were entitled to have the declaration asked for. It was also argued that the letters of administration granted to the plaintiffs should be taken to have a retrospective effect, as if they were granted at the time of the death of Hurro Mohun, and that, therefore, he was entitled to claim the properties in question notwithstanding the unlawful possession of the sons of Hurr...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Dassee Vs. Chandra Pode Mondle and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal374
Banerjee, J.1. This was a suit by a Hindu widow against her husband's brothers for maintenance and for setting aside a compromise on the ground of fraud. The plaintiff alleged in her plaint that, in accordance with the directions of her father-in-law, her husband's brothers defendants Nos. 1 and 2, agreed to give her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3 a month; that three months' maintenance having fallen in arrears the plaintiff brought a suit to recover the same, and defendant No. 3 was her agent to look after, and defendant No. 4 her pleader appointed to conduct, that case; that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with defendant No. 3, caused a petition of compromise to be filed in that case on behalf of the plaintiff without her knowledge and consent; and that the plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit to recover maintenance for nine months and to set aside the compromise. The defence of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (which is the only defence necessary to consider now) was to the...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Bengal Vs. Kartick Chunder Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal805
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs, the holders of a bill of exchange, against three persons (the drawer, the acceptor, and endorser) under the Negotiable Instruments Act (Act XXVI of 1881). Section 35 of that Act provides that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, whoever endorses and delivers a negotiable instrument before maturity without in such endorsement expressly excluding or making conditional his own liability, is bound thereby to every subsequent holder, and the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the holder of a bill of exchange may sue all the parties to it in one action. This has been done, and there is no question that the parties are all equally liable to the plaintiffs. The learned Judge has given judgment against all three, but he has made it a condition of the judgment that no execution is to issue against the endorser until the holder has exhausted his remedies against the drawer and acceptor. We are unable to agree with the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Bromomoyi Dassi, Executrix to the Estate of Kishen Kishore Ghose Vs. G ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal163
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit for arrears of tent of a putni taluk from Kartick 1293 to Agrahan 1294, that is, for fourteen months, and the amount, claimed, including cesses and interest, is Rs. 12,541-14-5.2. The defence, so far as it is material in the present appeal, is that the interest of the defendants in the putni was sold in execution of a decree on the 12th Falgoon 1293 and was purchased by one Bromomoyi Chowdhurani, who, by virtue of her purchase, obtained possession of the putni and deposited in Court what is called the landlord's fee, and the farther fee for service of notice of the sale on the landlord as required by the Bengal Tenancy Act, that this notice was duly served on the plaintiff, and that, under these circumstances, the defendants are not liable for the rent which has accrued subsequent to the sale. The Subordinate Judge who tried the case finds that the putni was sold on the 12th Falgoon 1293 in execution of a decree other than a decree for arrears o...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandun Pershad and anr. Vs. Bhugoo Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal268
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. It is now contended in second appeal: (1) that the application of the 15th August 1888 ought to be regarded as a continuation of the application filed on the 11th June 1883; and (2), that the suit instituted by the decree-holder on the 22nd March 1884, and the appeal presented to the High Court, ought to be regarded as being in the nature of applications to take some step in aid of the execution of the decree; and that the decree-holders ought to be allowed to reckon their time either from the 22nd July 1887, or from the 29th March 1886. In support of the first of these contentions several cases have been cited amongst which we may mention Pyaroo Tuhovildarinee v. Nazir Hossein 23 W.R. 183, Issuree Dassee v. Abdui Khalak I.L.R. 4 Cal. 435, Chandra Prodhan v. Gopi Mohun Saha I.L.R. 14 Cal. 385, and Paras Ram v. Gardner I.L.R. 1 All. 355.2. We have heard the learned Vakil for the appellant at some length on the point, and we think that all that it was possible...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Medhi Galistana and ors. Vs. Zoharra Begum and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal285
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Pigot, J.1. We think the case of Neate v. Pink 15 Sim. 450 as it stands and as explained by Mr. Justice Fry in the case of Brucklebank v. East London Railway Company L.R. 12 Ch. D. 839, shows that it is proper for, and perhaps absolutely incumbent on, this Court to make an order for an enquiry in these proceedings. It is not necessary for us to dwell upon the principle enforced in those two cases. It is clear that whatever is the least expensive course, consistent with a satisfactory enquiry, ought to be adopted, in order that the Court shall not, by its own dominant power, hold property on which the parties to the suit have no claim, and hold it in despite of the real owners. If the Court can find out who the real owners are, it should do so, and in the least expensive manner. Mr. Justice NORRIS'S order must be set aside, and in its place we order an enquiry to be held as to the rights of the applicants or such other persons as may be entitled by assignment...
Tag this Judgment!Gujraj Sahai Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal414
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. This suit is instituted for a declaration of right and confirmation of possession of an estate, consisting of three mouzas in the District of Mozufferpore. The plaintiff says that the estate was sold at an auction-sale held on the 15th April 1886 in execution of a certificate, purporting to be issued under Bengal Act 'VII of 1880 and dated the 13th January 1886, and that the defendant became purchaser of the estate at this sale for the price of Rs'. 560. The estate is alleged by the plaintiff to be of the value of Rs. 40,000.2. The certificate was issued in respect of road-cess stated to be due to the amount of Rs. 43-4-C.3. Substantially the plaintiff's case, in the plaint, is that at the time of the auction-sale he had paid up all demands due by him; that the certificate was not in due form under the Act; that no notice under Section 10 of the Act was served on the plaintiff; and that the person to whom it is (he says) untruly alleged to have been given had n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »