Kolkata Court September 1893 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.
Ramdeo and anr. Vs. Pokhiram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal419
Macpherson, J.1. I think the case has been rightly decided, and I would answer the question submitted in the negative.2. The amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit is Rs. 2,148 and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, but the plaintiffs deducting by way of set-off a sum of Rs. 500 which was due by them to the defendant on account of a wholly different transaction, reduced their claim to Rs. 1,648. The defendant says that the sum of Rs. 500 is due to him, but he does not agree to its being set-off against the plaintiffs' claim. The question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to set off this sum so as to give the Small Cause Court jurisdiction, or in other words, whether there is 'a set-off admitted by both parties' within the meaning of Explanation I, Section 18 of the Small Cause Court Act (XV of 1882).3. Clearly the defendant did not before suit or during the trial agree to the set-off, but he admitted the debt of Rs. 500, if a person can be properly said to admit a de...
In Re: Srish Chunder Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal206
Sale, J.1. This is an application for the appointment of the adoptive mother of the infant Srish Chunder Singh as guardian of his person and property made under Clause 17 of the Charter, and also under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The circumstances under which it is made may be shortly stated as follows : Srish Chunder Singh was taken in adoption by the widow of Grish Chunder Singh, as a son to Grish Chunder Singh. Grish Chunder Singh, who was entitled to a share of very large properties, called the Paikpara Raj Estate, which originally belonged to two brothers, Issur Chunder Singh and Pertap Chunder Singh, died in 1877, leaving a will by which he appointed his uterine brothers Poorno Chunder Singh, Kanti Cunder Singh, and Sarut Cunder Singh, and his paternal uncle's son Indra Chunder Singh, his executors. The terms of the appointment will be more particularly referred to presently.2. At that time the family was joint, and the joint Paikpara estate was in charge of the Cou...
Mahommed Zohuruddeen Vs. Mahommed Noorooddeen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal85
Sale, J.1. This was an application made on behalf of the attorneys of the plaintiff in this suit for payment out to them of a sum of money belonging to the plaintiff, now in the hands of the Receiver.2. The suit was for partition of various properties including the family dwelling-house at Tallygunge. There was in this suit originally a reference to arbitration, which proved infructuous. Both in the suit and in connection with the arbitration proceedings Mr. Farr, an attorney of this Court and a member of the firm of Watkins and Company, appears to have supplied out-of-pocket costs, and also to have become entitled to costs for work done by himself. To secure the costs due to Mr. Farr, the plaintiff on the 6th of July 1891 deposited with him the title-deeds of the family dwelling-house. Previously by an order, dated 21st August 1890, the Receiver was directed to sell all the immoveable properties. Under that order he sold the family dwelling-house to the plaintiff. By another order, da...
Clark Vs. Alexander
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal200
Sale, J.1. This was an application by the plaintiff for an order that a sum of Rs. 975-13-7, now in Court standing to the credit of this suit, be paid to him in part satisfaction of the decree obtained by him in this suit. The money represents salary which was attached in the hands of the Accountant-General of Bengal. There were, it appears, five attachments made by the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, under Section 285 of the Code, in execution of three of its own decrees and two decrees of a mofussil Court sent to it for execution.2. Under these attachments a moiety of the salary of the defendant, who is in the Pilot Service, was from time to time realized by the Small Cause Court in part satisfaction. Before full satisfaction could be obtained, an attachment was made by this Court in execution of the decree in this suit, which was followed by an order for payment of the money so attached into this Court to the credit of this suit. That order was made without notice to the outside dec...
HossaIn Ali Mirza Vs. Abid Ali Mirza and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal177
Sale, J.1. This was an application made by some of the defendants under Section 380 of the Code, for an order that the plaintiff do furnish security for all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by the defendants in this suit. The applicants have referred to the title of the suit in which the plaintiff is described 'as residing at Hyderabad', and to an application which was made by the plaintiff in connection with a suit between the present defendants in which he is described as 'residing at Hyderabad, Deccan, in the dominions of His Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad', and they have pledged themselves to the statement in their affidavit that the plaintiff is residing out of British India and 'does not possess any immoveable property within British India independent of the property claimed in this suit.' The plaintiff, who claims to be a British subject, in his affidavit in answer says, that ten years ago he removed from the City of Hyderabad to the British Cantonment of Secunderabad a...
Rash Behari Das Vs. Balgopal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal92
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. The question in this case is whether an Appellate Court, in rejecting an appeal under the provisions of Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, is obliged to give a judgment containing the particulars enumerated in Section 367 of the Code, or at any rate, give reasons for its decision. In this case the Magistrate of Midnapore, acting as an Appellate Court, has, in rejecting the appeal, simply recorded the words 'appeal rejected.' The question is an important one affecting a large number of tribunals in this country. So far as we know, this Court has always considered that Section 421 does not require a formal judgment of any description. There seems to be no reported or decided case on the subject in this Court. In a case of In the matter of the petition of Bala Subbana (Weir's Rep. 1009) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court expressly held that no judgment was necessary. Mr. Justice Brodhurst, sitting as a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, expr...
Hara Coomar Sircar Vs. Doorgamoni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal195
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Backergunge dismissing an application for probate of the will of one Dhan Krishna Sircar. The application was made under the following circumstances : Dhan Krishna Sircar died on the 3rd April 1889. On the 27th March 1889 he executed a will, which was duly registered on the 29th of that month. By this will, he devised the bulk of his estate to his minor grandson Pratap Chandra Sircar, and he appointed as his executors his brother Jagobundhu Sircar and his wife Doorgamoni; and he also appointed his nephew Hara Coomar Sircar (son of a deceased brother Tarini Charan Sircar) to manage the collection business of his estate : and the last paragraph of his will runs thus: 'If before Sriman Pratap Chandra Sircar attains majority Jagobundhu dies, then Hara Coomar Sircar will be executor in his place; and in case of Doorgamoni's death the minor's mother Nistarini will be executrix in her place. Be it noted that ther...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›