Kolkata Court January 1896 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.
Harendra Lall Roy Vs. Sarvamangala Dabee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal183
Ameer Ali, J.1. This rule was obtained by Sreemutty Sarvamangala Dabee, one of the defendants in a suit No. 957 of 1895 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dinagepur, under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, calling upon the plaintiff Harendra Lall Roy to show cause why the said suit should not be removed to this Court, to be tried and determined in this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. The circumstances under which the suit in question was instituted are shortly these:2. One Sreenath Sanyal died on the 20th May 1892, leaving considerable property, both moveable and immoveable. The immoveable property is situated partly in the District of Dinagepur and partly in the District of Burdwan, the bulk being in Dinagepur. The moveable property consists of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in the hands of the Accountant General of this Court, and the accumulated rents of the zemindaries at Dinagepur, amounting to a large sum in the hands of the Collector of Dinage...
Dwarika Nath Addya Vs. Jagobandhu Dey Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal446
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for a declaration that a certain kabala executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 is a collusive and benami transaction, and that the property covered by the said kabala is liable to attachment and sale for satisfaction of the decree obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 2. The defence of the defendant No. 1 was that the kabala was a real and bond fide transaction, and that the property in dispute was therefore not liable to attachment and sale as the property of the defendant No. 2.2. The Court of First Instance found that the kabala was a real and bond fide transaction, and it accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. On appeal by the plaintiff' the Lower Appellate Court, whilst affirming the finding of the first Court as to the reality and bond fides of the kabala, has reversed its decision and given the plaintiff a decree upon the ground that the ...
Queen-empress Vs. Banka Patni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal414
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. We think that the Judge has taken a right view in this matter. It appears to us that the word 'publisher' has been used in the Act XXV of 1867 in a restricted sense, and does not include booksellers such as the accused are. Section 12 of the Act refers to Section 3; and, looking at this latter section, it seems to be clear enough that the accused could not be regarded as publishers' within the meaning of that section, for it enjoins the printing of the names of the printer and 'publisher.' The accused are not booksellers by profession, and they are ignorant people, and it could never have been, intended to bring such men within the operation of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the conviction as recommended by the Judge....
Gous Mahomed Vs. Khawas Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal450
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. The appellant, as the assignee of the assignee of a decree on a mortgage bond, applied for execution of that decree. The successive assignors admitted the assignments, but the judgment-debtor objected to the execution proceedings upon various grounds, of which it is necessary to notice only one, namely, that the applicant bad no right to execute the decree by reason of the assignment in favour of his vendor from the original decree-holder being by an unregistered document, which is inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act.2. The first Court overruled the other objections of the judgment-debtor, and with reference to the objection last mentioned, it held that, though by reason of the assignment in favour of the applicant's vendor not being by a registered document, the applicant was not entitled to enforce the decree as a mortgage decree, there was nothing to prevent his enforcing it as a si...
Mahomed Ali Vs. Wazid Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal404
Sale, J.1. In this case a commission was issued by the Court to examine stores residing in the District of Bakharganj. The Commissioner appointment evidence is a vakil practising in that district, and he has (sic)informing this Court that the persons to be examined under the commis-(sic)disregarded a notice to appear before him. Section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: (After reading the section His Lordship continud(sic). The Commissioner being thus vested with the powers of a Civil Court may summon witnesses and enforce their attendance under the provisions of the Code, but as a private Commissioner, without the machinery of a Court he may find practical difficulty in enforcing the order. If unable for this reason to execute the commission he should return it to this Court. This Court may then send the commission to a Civil Court, within the local limits or whose jurisdiction the witnesses to be examined reside, which may be done under Section 386 of the Code. The sa...
A. Yule and Co. Vs. Mahomed HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal124
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Prinsep, J.1. My answers to the questions are:1. The plaintiffs cannot on the plaint before the Court recover the loss alleged by them to have been sustained at the sale held on the 25th July.2. In an action properly framed the amount of damages would not be limited to the expenses incurred at the sale.3. In an action properly framed the plaintiffs would not be prevented from recovering damages because they only professed to sell 13 out of the 15 bales.2. The ease has been entirely misunderstood, and neither of the questions proposed really arises in it at all.3. The contract was for the sale of 15 bales of grey shirtings, and would have been satisfied by the delivery of any 15 bales which answer to the description in the contract.4. It is found by the Judge that the 15 bales which were tendered by the plaintiffs did answer the description, but as they were at once refused by the defendants and. were never take a by them into their possession, the property i...
Raja Sreenath Roy and ors. Vs. Raja Peary Mohan Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1896
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.205
1. This suit is brought against the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 as representatives of Shamadhone Mookerjee upon a promissory note for Rs. 15,000, made payable on demand, dated the 14th August 1886. The amount claimed is Rs. 8,398-10-6. There is no doubt that that amount is due on the note and the suit was practically undefended, so far as the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were concerned. The 7th defendant, the respondent, was sued upon a letter of guarantee made by him in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:I am very thankful to you for your having agreed to lend a further sum of Rs. 15,000 (fifteen thousand) to my relative Babu Shamadhone Mookerjee. The money has been to-day paid to him in my presence by Babu Jadabchander Dutt, M.A. If there be a default in the re payment of the loan you may look to me for re payment.2. The original Court held the suit barred by imitation, holding that Article 65 of the Limitation Act (Act XV of 1877) applied; and the plaintiff appeals on the ground th...
Chintamony Dutt Vs. Mohesh Chundra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal454
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree obtained by the appellant before us, against a Hindu widow, Hemangini Debi, in the year 1887. The decree is now sought to be executed against the respondents before us, who are described in the application for execution as the heirs of the late Hemangini Debi, and who were brought on the record as her representatives, by the attachment of the surplus proceeds of the sale of certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtors, that is the heirs of Homangini. The judgment-debtors objected to the execution proceeding against them, on the ground that the properties, the sale proceeds of which were sought to be attached, belonged originally to Hemangini's husband; that Hemangini had only a Hindu widow's interest in the same; and that they succeeded to those properties as the reversionary heirs of her husband. On the other hand the decree-holder contended that he was entitled to execute the decree ...
Queen-empress Vs. Ashwini Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal421
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly who forwards for our inspection and consideration the record of a case in which one Ashwini Kumar Ghose, the collecting member of a panchayet, constituted under the provisions of Bengal Act VI of 1870, has been fined Rs. 30 by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Serampore on the 24th October 1895 under Section 8 of the Act.2. The principal question to be decided in connection with this matter is whether the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Serampore was passed in his judicial or his executive capacity. We are of opinion that it was passed in the former. The order complained of punishes the petitioner in this case with a fine, which has been imposed on him by a Magistrate under the provisions of an Act of the Bengal Council. The accused has therefore been found guilty of an offence [see Section 4, Clause (p) of the Criminal Procedure Code], and this fine is realisable from him under the provisions of the Penal and ...
Dakhina Mohan Roy Chowdhry Vs. Saroda Mohan Roy Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal357
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This is a matter relating to the execution of an order passed by Her Majesty in Council. The order of this Court was set aside on appeal,. and their Lordships of the Privy Council directed that the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge should be restored, and they further directed that, the respondents were to pay to the appellant as costs of the appeal to the High Court and as costs incurred in England the sum of 193 17s. sterling,, and further that the sum of 300 deposited by the appellant in the Registry of the Privy Council as security for costs should be repaid to him.2. The Subordinate Judge in execution of this decree has refused to allow the appellant decree-holder the rate of exchange at the time of the execution of the decree, and he has allowed him execution calculated only at the rate of exchange at the time of the passing of the order by their Lordships of the Privy Council. He has also refused to allow the decree-holder interest on the costs...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »