Kolkata Court March 1890 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.
Degumburi Debi Vs. Aushootosh Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal610
Wilson, J.1. On this application two questions arise. The first is whether this case falls within the enactment. The enactment in question is the second paragraph of Section 380 of the Procedure Code, which paragraph has been added by a recent enactment, Act VI of 1888, and is as follows: 'On the application of any defendant in a suit for money in which the plaintiff is a woman, the Court may at any stage of the suit make a like order' (that is an order for security for costs) 'if it is satisfied that such plaintiff does not possess any sufficient immoveable property within British India independent of the property in suit'/ The first question, then, is whether this is a suit for money. It is a suit in which the plaintiff claims in the alternative to recover certain gold and silver ornaments, chests, plates, clothing and other things, and Rs. 3,000 in cash and Rs. 500 in notes said to be in one of the chests, or for the value of such things. As to the meaning of the section, I think it...
The Queen-Empress Vs. O'Hara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal643
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. Thomas O'Hara, a private in the Leinster Regiment, having in the February Sessions been convicted by a special jury of the murder of Sheikh Soleem on the 7th November was sentenced to death by Mr. Justice NORRIS, and we are now called upon to determine certain points of law arising from the summing up of the learned Judge to the jury, which have been in the certificate of the Advocate-General under Section 26 of the Letters Patent of 1865.2. That section is as follows:And we do further ordain that on such point or points of law being so reserved as aforesaid, or on its being certified by the said Advocate-General that, in his judgment, there is an error in the decision of a point or points of law decided by the Court of Original Criminal Jurisdiction, or that a point or points of law which has or have been decided by the said Court should be further considered, the said High Court shall have full power and authority to review the case, or such part of it as ma...
Mohini Mohan Das Vs. Satis Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal705
Tottenham and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The question involved in this rule is whether, under Section 21 of Act XII of 1887, the appeal of the judgment debtors lies in this Court or in the Court of the District Judge.2. For the petitioners it is contended that the expression 'value of the original suit' in Section 21 Act XII of 1887 means the valuation fixed upon by the plaintiff at the outset, without regard to the value of the relief sought or the amount of the mesne profits that might be found due to the plaintiff; and it has been urged that to hold that the appeal from the decree for possession should lie to the District Judge, and that the appeal on the question of mesne profits should lie to this Court, would involve an anomaly. For the decree-holders it has been contended that the value of the suit depends not merely upon the value of the property sought to be recovered, but also upon the value or amount of the profits recoverable. We think this contention is correct.3. Under Section 50 o...
A.C. Boyd Vs. A. Kreig
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal548
Trevelyan, J.1. The only questions argued before me and which I have to decide in this case are whether the documents which create the tenancy of the defendant are admissible in evidence. It is conceded that if they are admitted in evidence there must be a decree for the defendant except as I shall mention hereafter, and that if they are not so admitted the plaintiff must succeed. The contention between the parties is as to the payment of the costs. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Its. 520, the rent for the months of July, August, September and October 1889.2. The rent for July was offered to him, but he refused to accept it, so that the tender of the rent for the subsequent months would have been an empty form, and as the rent for these months accrued due after the suit was brought, the tender or non-tender of the rent could not affect the costs of the suit.3. The defendant has vacated the premises since the suit was brought.4. The admissibility of the documents depends in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›