Kolkata Court July 1890 Judgments
Adinath Dey Minor Represented by His Guardian Mohesh Chunder Das and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal69
Banerjee, J.1. This was a suit instituted on behalf of the minor, Adinath Dey, one of the respondents before us, for a declaration that he was the adopted son of the late Raj Narain Dey, and for possession of the properties left by Raj Navain. The plaintiff alleged that the adoption was made according to the permission given by Raj Narain by his younger widow, Biraj Mohini Dasi, defendant No. 2, upon the refusal of the elder widow, Mondakini, defendant No. I. The defendant No. 1 denied the fact of adoption, as well as the existence of any authority to adopt, and the defendant No. 2, while admitting that there was permission to adopt, questioned the validity of the adoption on the ground that she was a minor and could not make a valid adoption.2. The first Court held that the adoption was valid, and it gave the plaintiff a decree. That decree was reversed by the District Judge on appeal; but on second appeal, this Court set aside the decision of the District Judge on the ground of impro...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Nursing Doss Vs. Ram Chunder Jankee Loll
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal86
Pigot, J.1. We quite agree with the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court in the opinion expressed by him that it has always been held in Calcutta, since Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act came into force, that the representatives of a deceased partner must always be made parties to suits as plaintiffs with the surviving partner or partners.2. There are two cases in which that matter has come before this Court--One is Suit No. 243 of 1881 Remfry v. Patipaban Sen in which case the hearing was, on the 9th December 1881, adjourned in order that the plaint might be amended in accordance with this construction of the section. The second which we may mention was Suit No. 103 of 1890 Balkishen v. Monimadhab Sen, the hearing of which was on the 5th May 1890, adjourned for a similar purpose notwithstanding that the case of Gobind Prasad v. Chunder Sekhar I.L.R. 9 All. 486 referred to by the learned Chief Judge, was cited.3. It is possible that, in some other partnership case, a questi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Matter of Queen-empress Vs. Trailakya Nath Baral
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal39
Pigot, J.1. We think that the question put to us at the end of the 4th paragraph of this reference must be answered in the negative, and that the absence of the certificate required by Rule 5(b) of the rules issued by the Governor-General in Council does not make the document in question 'not duly stamped' within the intention of the Stamp Act. It is not necessary for us to express an opinion as to the exact scope of the direction contained in that rule. Whether or not it is a purely administrative order, directory as addressed to the treasury officer or to the stamp vendor, or whether it be also intended for the protection from inconvenience or what not, of the person applying for the stamps, in neither case can it, in our judgment, be held that the non-compliance by the treasury officer or the stamp vendor with the direction to give such a certificate is an act for which the person purchasing the stamp from him can be punished by the invalidation of the stamps innocently bought by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Hurree Mohun Mythee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal49
Wilson, J.1. The prisoner is accused of several different offences, but all arising out of the same event. What you are enquiring into is the death of the girl Phulmoni, the wife of the prisoner, which occurred on the afternoon of the 16th June, and which is said to have been the result of injuries caused by the prisoner to her during the previous night. The prisoner is charged with having caused his wife's death, or having injured her, in four different forms. He is first charged with having caused her death under such circumstances as to amount to culpable homicide, though not to murder. Culpable homicide means causing the death of a person by an act which is done either with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. In the present case there is no suggestion of an intention to cause death, and therefore, practically, you may take it that the case put to you upon this charge is that the accused caused his wife's death by doing an act whic...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Solomon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal931
Wilson, J.1. The question raised now is one which I think I am bound to answer at this stage, in fairness to those who have the responsibility of conducting the case for the prosecution and for the defence, namely, whether, in the events which have happened down to this stage, the Crown is entitled to a reply, This seems to me to depend solely on the provisions of Section 292* of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Independently of authority I should have thought that it did not give the Crown the right of reply. It only gives the right when the accused has stated, in reply to the question put to him under Section 289, that he means to adduce evidence. I further think it is my duty to follow the decisions of this Court rather than that of the Madras High Court. I hold, therefore, that up to this stage of the case nothing has happened which gives the Crown a right of reply.* Prosecutor's right of reply.[Section 292: If the accused, or any of the accused, has stated when asked under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Nistariny Dabya, Miner, by Her Guardian Sarasaty Dabya Vs. Brahmomoyi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal45
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. It is very properly conceded before as that the allegation of fraud and collusion has not been substantiated, and the only point pressed upon us is that the appellant is entitled to ask the executrix, Brahmomoyi, to prove the will in solemn form in her presence, as she neither appeared nor had she been specially cited to appear in the previous proceedings, and that there was just cause for revocation of probate within the meaning of Section 50 of the Probate Act, the absence of special citation making the proceedings substantially defective.2. We do not think this contention is sound. The authorities cited in its support do not bear it out. In Komol Lochun Dutt v. Nilruttun Mundle I.L.R. 4 Cal. 360 the only point decided was that the grant of probate could not be contested by a regular suit, and that if the probate was wrongly granted, the proper course was to apply for its revocation according to the procedure laid down in the Succession Act. Some of the...
Tag this Judgment!Nundo Lall Kar Mahapatra Vs. Siva Pershad Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal139
Macpherson, J.1. A further point, though not raised in the written statement of the defendants, was raised in argument before the Subordinate Judge, namely, that the plaintiff's objections to the validity of the sale ought to have been preferred and dealt with under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Court executing the decree, and that no separate suit to set aside the sale would lie. This contention the Subordinate Judge overruled.2. The same objection has now been taken before us, and the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mohendro Narain Chaturaj v. Gopal Mondul I.L.R. 17 Cal. 769 is relied on. The facts of that case are similar to those of the present case: indeed they are more favourable to the plaintiff than they are here, because no application to set aside the sale had been made or dealt with prior to the regular suit which was instituted for the purpose of setting it aside. The question referred to the Full Bench was:Whether, when circumstances affecting...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Chandra Dass Vs. Fatik Chandra Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1890
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal803
Tottenham and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This is a rule to show cause why the decree passed by the Munsif of Madaripur, ostensibly under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, should not be set aside. The grounds upon which the rule was obtained were that upon the face of the plaint it was clear that, although Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was cited in the plaint as the law under which relief was sought, the prayers contained in the plaint clearly do not all come under that section; and that the decree passed by the Munsif went beyond a mere possessory decree sanctioned by that section.2. We think that this is so. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a certain portion of land of which he said he was dispossessed by the defendants, and he went on to ask that the defendants might be ordered to pay over to him the cost of removing certain huts erected by them, and of filling up excavations made. These prayers are beyond the scope of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act; and the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Companies Act 1882; in Re: the Ganges Steam Tug Comp ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal31
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. I am of opinion that this appeal must be allowed, and the appellants' claim against the company admitted. I agree with the learned Judge that Ramkissen was, upon the face of the account, the customer of the bank; but I think that whatever was the form of the account, or by whatever machinery the loan was carried out, it has been proved that the account was in fact the account of the company, and that the advance was made to them.2. This is not the ordinary case of a liquidator whose only duty is to collect the assets of an insolvent company and to distribute them, but of the liquidator of apparently a solvent company who was to carry on the business for the company for an indefinite term, and for that purpose required and kept a banking account in his own name, but which was used only for the company's business.3. It is a well-established law that a person who has made a contract with an agent may if and when he pleases, look directly to the principal, un...
Tag this Judgment!W.H. Kraal and ors. Vs. H. J. Whymper
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal786
Wilson and Pigot, JJ.1. This matter comes before us in the form of a special case stated for the opinion of the Court under Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first question submitted to us, and the only one which we propose to answer, is: 'Whether the subscribers to the General Family Pension Fund are a company, association, or partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on business, other than that of banking, that has for its object the acquisition of gain by the company, association, or partnership, or by the individual members thereof, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882.' If it does fall within that description, then the Companies Act requires that it should be registered as a Company under that Act, unless formed under some other Act of Parliament, or of the Indian Legislature, or by Royal Charter, or Letters Patent; and, not being so registered or formed, it is an illegal association. If the association does not fall within the abov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »