Kolkata Court February 1898 Judgments
In Re: W. H. Collett
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal856
Sale, J.1. I think it would be desirable to strike out the name of A. S. Collett. I do not think notice to him is necessary, inasmuch as he is shown to have knowledge of the application and to have approved of it, but there must be an affidavit showing that he is absent in England.2. Mr. Caspersz states that he will file an affidavit to that effect, and have the name of the person referred to struck out from the petition, and that he would mention the matter again upon the affidavit being ready.3. [Mr. Caspersz subsequently mentioned the matter, and put in the affidavit required, with the original agreement and an office copy of the power of attorney annexed. Upon that his Lordship made the order prayed for.]4. Solicitors for the Petitioners: Messrs. Sanderson & Co....
Tag this Judgment!Brahmadeo Narayan Vs. Harjan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal778
Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ.1. In this case the assignee from a reversioner is seeking to question a sale made by a Hindu widow. The widow is now dead. The assignment was made to the plaintiff during her lifetime.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that no effect can be given to that assignment, having regard to the terms of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. In that section the following property is stated not to be capable of transfer, namely, 'the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman, or any other mere possibility of a like nature.' The question before us is whether the right of a Hindu reversioner during the life-time of the widow is included within this expression. It is not, we are confident, possible to include it within the expression The chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate.' The words 'heir-apparent' are always used with reference to the relation between a living p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Taramoni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal553
Sale, J.1. I have considered the question of costs, and it appears to me the rule is this: The executor of the will of the testator is entitled, in the same way as the next of kin would be, to call upon the executor of a prior will to prove in solemn form and to cross-examine the witnesses in support of the will, supposing there are any suspicious circumstances in connection with the execution of that will.2. In the present case I think the executor of the former will has done nothing more than discharge the duty cast on him. There were circumstances undoubtedly of suspicion in connection with the execution of the subsequent will. The testatrix very shortly after executing the former will left her place of residence, and, while living under the care and protection of her nephews, executed a will in their favour, which was certainly inconsistent with the terms of the provisions of the previous will. It is quite true the learned counsel for the executor of the first will did not confine ...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf Mahomed Abaruth Vs. Bansidhur Siraogi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal639
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asking us to set aside an order of the District Magistrate of Howrah directing the Deputy Magistrate to proceed with the trial of a case in which the accused has been charged with an offence punishable under Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, and which the Deputy Magistrate had dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2. The ground upon which the Deputy Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case is given in his judgment in the following words : After referring to Section 486 of the Penal Code, the learned Deputy Magistrate says:' Now, as I understand and interpret this section, I think this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. The section says: 'Whoever sells or exposes or has in possession for sale or any purpose of trade or manufacture any goods, &c.;' Now, looking to the evidence adduced, admittedly the tins of ghee were on transit from Etawah to Rangoon, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Abhoy Charan Dass and anr. Vs. Municipal Ward Inspector
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal625
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the convictions and sentences in this case should not be set aside on the ground that as regards the offence under Section 307 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888, it has not been found that the accused were occupiers of the premises in question, and that as regards the offence under Section 336, it has not been found that the accused permitted any animals to be kept in the said premises in contravention of the provisions of Section 335 within the meaning of the law.2. No one appears to show cause, but a written explanation has been submitted by the Magistrate which goes to supplement the judgment. We do not think that effect can be given to the explanation as supplementing the judgment.3. Turning now to the judgment, we find that there is nothing to show that the accused are the occupiers of the premises in question, and so the conviction under Section 307 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888 must be set...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Chunder Goswami Vs. Bisheswar Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal585
Maclean, C.J.1. We directed this case to be put on the Board to-day under these circumstances. In the case heard by the Full Bench yesterday S. A. No. 1517 of 1896, objection was taken that there could not be a valid reference from a single Judge to a Full Bench. That case has been considered by us, and we have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that such a reference cannot be made. In the present case that objection was not taken, but the decision I have referred to applies equally to the present case, which was also a reference by a single Judge. Therefore the reference to the Full Bench was bad, and our judgment which has not been signed, passed and entered, must be recalled. Strictly then our course is to send the case back to Mr. Justice Stevens, but, in order to save the parties expense, and as they consent, the proper steps shall be taken to have the case heard by a specially constituted Court of the same five Judges who heard it on the previous occasion. This will, we consider...
Tag this Judgment!Dhurmo Dass Ghose Vs. Brahmo Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal616
Jenkins, J.1. On the 20th of July 1895 the plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant a mortgage over premises in Calcutta known as No. 15, Bolaram Ghosh's Street and 133, Cornwallis Street, to secure Rs. 20,000, and the present suit is brought to have the deed cancelled on the ground that at the time of its execution the plaintiff was an infant. On the evidence before me I have no hesitation in finding that the plaintiff was under the age of twenty-one on the 20th of July 1895, and as at that time his mother Jogendra Nandini Dasi was guardian of his person and property under an order of Court to that effect, it follows that at the date of the mortgage the plaintiff was under such incapacity as arises from infancy. By way of answer to this incapacity the defendant in the first place contends that the loan was induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation made by the plaintiff to the defendant's attorney Kedar Nath Mitter, to the effect that the plaintiff was of age, and that Kedar Nath ...
Tag this Judgment!Poorno Chunder Ghose and ors. Vs. Sassoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal496
Maclean, C.J.1. I had the advantage of bearing this case argued before the Division Bench of which I was a member, and I have had the further advantage now of having heard the case re-argued by the learned Advocate General, but the later arguments have not shaken the view I entertained and expressed when the case was before us on the previous occasion. The facts in this case have been found in the reference, and the short question we have to decide is, whether or not, having regard to Section 13 of the Limitation Act, and to the fact found in the reference that all the partners in the defendants' firm were absent from British India from February to November 1896, the time of such absence is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the suit. It is conceded by the defendants that, if such time be excluded, the suit has been instituted within the prescribed period, and is not barred by the statute.2. It is found as a fact in the case, that the defendants had a p...
Tag this Judgment!Moll Schutte and Co. Vs. Luchmi Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal505
Maclean, C.J., O'Kinealy, Trevelyan, Ghose and Ameer Ali, JJ.Maclean, C.J.1. If it had not been for one passage in the judgment in the case of Yule & Co. v. Mahomed Hossain (1896) I.L.R. 24 Cal. 124 I should scarcely have thought that the point which we have to decide, and which has been submitted to us, was susceptible of serious argument. The passage I refer to is at page 128 of the report, and it is as follows:To such a case as this neither Section 107 of the Contract Act nor the proviso for re-sale in the contract itself can have any application, as no such power is required to enable a man to sell his own goods.2. I may point out in passing that that passage scarcely appears to me to have been necessary for the decision of the case, having regard to the real question which was then submitted by the reference. The question we have first to decide is the first question submitted to us in the reference. In my opinion that question ought to be answered in the affirmative. Section 107 ...
Tag this Judgment!DolhIn Golab Koer and ors. Vs. Mangun Jha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal692
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E.C.J.1. The short point we have to decide is whether the case falls within Article 36 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act, or whether it is within some one or other of the articles to which I will refer in a moment. According to the reference, the suit was brought for, amongst other things, damages for cutting and carrying away crops, and it is admitted that, if Article 36 applies, the suit is out of time, but that if Article 39 or Articles 48 or 49 or Article 109, which are the articles upon which the plaintiff relies, apply, then, as the period of three years, which is the period under the latter articles, had not elapsed when the suit was instituted, it was brought within time, and the statute of limitations is not a bar. To my mind Article 36 does not apply to this case. In the first place that section is a general one and only applies when the particular case is not specially provided for in the Act. Again, the words 'malfeasance,' 'misfeasance'...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »