Kolkata Court January 1891 Judgments
Hafez Mahomed Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Damodar Paramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal242
Tottenham, J.1. This was a rule to show cause against an order passed by the Munsif of Serajgunge allowing rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale held in execution of decree to the opposite party under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petitioners, having obtained a decree against the judgment-debtors, caused certain properties to be sold in execution thereof. Twenty-five per cent. of the purchase-money was deposited at the time of the sale. Before the balance of the purchase-money was paid in, the opposite party, who had also obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtors, applied for rateable distribution of the proceeds; and the present petitioners objected to his being allowed to participate, upon the ground that he had not applied in time. The Court below hold that the application of the opposite party was in time, inasmuch as it held that the purchase-money had not been realized at the time he put in his application, and it allowed him rateable distr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheoraj Nandan Singh Vs. Gopal Suran NaraIn Singh a Minor Repre ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal290
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute. The rule arises out of an application for the attachment of certain properties which are claimed by the applicant to answer the judgment at the suit of the Manager of the Tikari Raj, against a lady of the name of Janki Kooer, and this property has been attached in the hands of the present applicant by the present decree-holder on the ground that it was originally the property of the judgment-debtor. It was transferred by her to the present applicant, the consideration for the transfer being an annuity payable by the transferee to her, and also an agreement on his part to discharge certain debts due by her including (it was contended) the debt in question in respect of which this claim is made.2. The Subordinate Judge has directed that this property should be sold to answer that claim, on the ground that by that document which transfers the property the present applicant does agree to pay this debt, and in con...
Tag this Judgment!Brojolall Sen Vs. Mohendro Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal199
Wilson, J.1. You are entitled to an order absolute for payment of the moneys mentioned in your affidavit, and forpayment of the costs of this application. You cannot now get an order for execution. There must first be anorder of Court for payment, and, if payment be not obtained, application for execution may be made....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J. Wilson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal247
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an application to transfer a case from the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer of Rajmehal to some other Court. The Deputy Commissioner having expressed a doubt as to the jurisdiction of the High Court over criminal Courts in the Sonthal Pergunnahs, it was intimated, when the rule was granted, that the Court would, on the hearing of the rule, consider the question of its jurisdiction to act as a Court of Revision generally, and also, with reference to the fact stated in the affidavit, as to the status of the petitioner as a European British subject.2. No one appeared to show cause or to support the contention that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. Hill has argued that the Court has jurisdiction over all the criminal Courts in the Sonthal Pergunnahs under the revisional powers conferred upon it by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that, if this is not so, it has undoubtedly jurisdiction in every case in which the accused person is ...
Tag this Judgment!Fazal Ali and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal234
Tottenham and Trevelyan, JJ.1. In this matter it was first objected that the Judge had no power to make a reference under Section 617 of the Code. This question depends upon whether the suit might have been brought in the Small Cause Court. It is undoubtedly a suit for money; and as the pleader who raised the objection has been unable to suggest under which article of the schedule to the Small Cause Act a suit of this kind is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, we cannot allow the objection, and must proceed to determine the reference.2. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover from the Secretary of State the surplus sale-proceeds of three taluks which were sold for arrears of Government revenue on the 3rd October 1877.3. This suit was instituted in November 1889, i.e., more than 12 years after the money came into the Collector's hands. The question which we have to determine is whether the suit is barred by limitation.4. The residue of the purchase-money of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›