Kolkata Court June 1894 Judgments
Kanta Pershad Hazaree Vs. Irshad Ali Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal935
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a second appeal against an order of the Special Judge of Chittagong, who has rejected an appeal against an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Chittagong on the ground that no appeal lies to him. On behalf of - the appellant it is contended that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was passed under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that it was ultra vires, being a decision as to a boundary dispute between neighbouring proprietors of land, and that, therefore, it should have been set aside by the Special Judge.2. A preliminary objection to the hearing of this second appeal has been urged on the ground that no appeal lies to this Court. We are of opinion that this contention must prevail. A second appeal only lies to this Court under Section 108 (3) against a decision of the Special Judge in a case under Section 106, and it is clear that the decision of the Special Judge in this case, which it is sought to set aside, is not a deci...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Charan Mal Vs. Chowdhry Debya Singh Pahraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal872
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover a certain sum of money on a registered bond, dated the 20th April 1886, executed by the four defendants in favour of the- plaintiff. At the time of the execution of the bond and of the institution of the suit, the defendant No. 1 was a minor, and the plaintiff's case against him was that he borrowed the money covered by the bond for necessaries, that is to say, for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred in defending him in a prosecution for dacoity before the Criminal Courts. This defendant, through his guardian ad litem, denied his liability under the bond, and he also pleaded limitation. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim against all the defendants. He found that the minor defendant borrowed the money for necessaries, as alleged by the plaintiff, and relying on Section 681 of the Contract Act, and on certain authorities cited in his judgment, he held that the bond was good and valid as against the minor, On the question of l...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: De Momet
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal1018
Sale, J.1. In this case I think I ought to follow the course adopted in the case of In re King, who was described as ' carrying on the trade and business of an indigo factory proprietor and dealer in indigo, lately residing at No. 3, Chowringhee Lane, in the town of Calcutta, but now residing at No. 21, Lindsay Street, in Calcutta, a European British subject.' In that matter the insolvent obtained his personal discharge, and in due course applied under Section 60 of the Indian Insolvent Act, first, for an order nisi, and, then, for an order absolute, for his final discharge. There being no opposition, the discharge was granted. The question whether he had properly described himself as a trader was not raised nor considered in that ease. What constitutes a trader depends upon the definition given to that term in Section 65, of the Statute 12 and 13 Victoria, cap. 106, which is rendered applicable to this country by Section 9 of the Indian Insolvent Act. In the enumeration of traders giv...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kanye Audhicary Vs. Cally Churn Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal840
Sale, J.1. This is a suit between Hindus on a mortgage to secure the repayment of a loan with interest. There is a second mortgage which was executed in favour of the second defendant, but no question arises as to that mortgage.2. The decree, so far as it relates to the plaintiff, directs an account to be taken of what is due to him for principal and interest, the latter to be computed at the contract rate for six months. It then directs that upon payment within six months of what shall be due for principal and interest, and allowed on taxation for costs, with interest on such costs at six per cent, per annum, the property under mortgage be retransferred : but that in default of payment the interest computed at the contract rate for six months be added to the principal sum, that thereafter interest be computed on the aggregate amount, that the property under mortgage be sold, that the sale proceeds be paid into Court and applied first in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff u...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Brahma Sircar and ors. Vs. Chandra Kanta Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal931
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J. 1. The accused in this case have been convicted under the provisions Sections 143 and 379 of the Penal Code and sentenced, the principal accused, Ra Brahma Sircar, to six months, and the remaining six accused to five mont, rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are as follows:-The complainant) Ohandra Kanta Shah is a trader, and on the 12th March last he wished to send certain bags of linseed from Boalia, where he lived, to Calcutta. He engaged some carts to j convey his bags, and on the morning of the day of the occurrence he sent twenty bags of linseed across the river, on the west bank of which resided, to the east bank where the carts, which were to convety his goods and those of another trader, were collected. The complainant says, that on the evening of the day before the occurrence ' the nabi's master, Mani Babu (that is, the. master of the principal accused Ram Brahma Sircar) had demanded a larger nazar than Rs. 2 from us. Rs. 2 h...
Tag this Judgment!Har Nandan Sahai Vs. Behari Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal3
Trevelyan and Amrer Ali, JJ.1. In this case the question arises whether an appeal lay from an order of the Munsif granting a review of judgment. We have heard the question argued out, and in our opinion the decision of a Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Co. v. S.S. 'Zuari' I.L.R. 12 Bom. 171, is expressly in point in this case. We see no circumstances distinguishing that case from the present one, and we see no reason for distinguishing it. If we had to decide the question ourselves we should decide it in exactly the same way. The reasons for the decision are fully given, and we entirely agree with them. In our opinion no appeal lay from the order of the Munsif granting the review. We think we ought to add also that this question of granting the review was fully considered by the Munsif, and there were materials before him for granting the review.2. The case must go back to the Lower Appellate Court to decide the other questions arising in the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madhub Nag Vs. Mati Lal Das, Overseer, Howrah Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal837
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. The petitioner Beni Madhub Nag has been convicted under bye-law 83 of the bye-laws of the Howrah Municipality for failing, in pursuance of a notice issued to him, to cut certain branches of a tree belonging to him which are alleged to overhang a tank belonging to a private individual and to be likely to foul its water. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5.2. Mr. Ghose on behalf of the petitioner contends that this bye-law which purports to have been framed under the provisions of Section 313, Bengal Act V of 1876, is not warranted by the provisions of that section, and therefore cannot be legally enforced.3. The bye-law runs as follows: (see ante p. 838).4. Now, on looking at the provisions of Section 313 of Bengal Act V of 1876 it is clear that this bye-law is not one such as the Commissioners of Municipalities were authorised to frame under this section. Section 2 of Bengal Act III of 1884 no doubt lays down that all bye-laws prescrib...
Tag this Judgment!Sitanath Panda Vs. Pelaram Tripati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal869
Beverley and Gordon, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a four-anna share of the rent of a certain jote on the allegation that the jote in question had been purchased by the defendants 1 to 3 in the name of defendant No. 4. The defendants 1 to 3, who are co-sharers in the mouza with the plaintiff, deny the purchase of the jote. The defendant No. 4 in his written statement alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 had purchased the jote, benami, in his name, and that defendants 2 and 3 were in possession.2. The first Court found that the defendants 1 and 2 had purchased the jote in the name of defendant No. 4, and were in possession of the jote, and decreed the suit against the defendants 1 to 4. This decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that under Section 20, Sub-section (7), of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the defendants must be presumed to be ryots with a right of occupancy, and therefore under Section 22, Sub-section (2), the right had merged in their superior righ...
Tag this Judgment!Bathoo Lal and anr. Vs. Domi Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal727
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. On the 9th of March 1894, Domi Lal, the complainant in this case, made a statement on affirmation, before the District Magistrate of Monghyr, in which he stated that the Baneli Raj people had closed a path or road by which jungle produce, wood, etc., were brought from the Sakaul and Gorega jungles to the railway and Singhia. That he had been sub-inspector of jungles for twelve or thirteen years, and had seen the road used each year, but this year it had been closed, as there were disputes between the Raj Baneli and Raj Durbangha. He also said that this year, when the road was being made, the Baneli people obstructed; that five persons, whose names he mentions, came with lathies, and said that they would not allow him to make the road; that they were ready to commit assault if necessary; and that when he had ascertained that, he came away. He added that the Sakaul and Gorega jungles entirely belong to Durbangha. Upon this the District Magistrate, on the same da...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Koeri and anr. Vs. Gopi Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal799
Ghosh and Gordon, JJ.1. This was a rule calling upon the opposite side, the purchaser at an execution sale, to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Bhagulpur confirming the sale should not be set aside.2. The Judge has found, in concurrence with the Munsif, that the judgment-debtor had a 2-annas and odd gundas share in taluk Bullubhpur and Singpur, which contains an area of 1,839 acres of land, but that in the sale proclamation the area was put down as 5 bighas : that the sale proclamation was not stuck up at the Collector's Office; that the proclamation of sale at the village has not been properly proved, and that the price realized at the sale (Rs. 375) is inadequate. But he is of opinion that there is no direct proof (for that is how we understand his judgment) that the inadequacy of price was due to the irregularities; and in this view he has held that the sale should be affirmed, relying, upon among others, the well-known case of Macnaghten v. Mahabir Pershad Singh I....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »