Kolkata Court June 1901 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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Jagat Mohini Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal540
Banerjee, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent in the first-mentioned appeal against the Secretary of State for India in Council, Messrs. Ralli Brothers and Barada Prasad Roy Chowdhry, for recovery of possession of certain immoveable property, namely, a garden, with mesne profits. The plaint is not very artistically drawn, but the main allegations on which the suit is based are shortly these: That the property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff, that defendants No. 2, Messrs. Ralli Brothers, having instituted criminal proceedings against defendant No. 3, Barada Prasad Boy Chowdhry, and the accused not having appeared, the property in dispute was, on the 1st of July 1895, attached at the instance of defendants No. 2, under Section. 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the property of the accused; that the plaintiff was thereby dispossessed from the garden, many of the trees in it have been destroyed for want of proper care, and the garden h...
In Re: M.A. Shard
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal574
Sale, J.1. This is an application under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, the object of which is to set aside an attachment issued under a decree of the Small Cause Court, dated the 16th day of January 1901. The applicants are Laura Elizabeth Madden, wife of the judgment-debtor, and Millie Augusta Sarah Shard, who was the plaintiff in an interpleader suit instituted in the Small Cause Court, for the purpose of having the attachment under the decree, I have mentioned, removed.2. The matter came before the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court and he dismissed the interpleader suit, and the result is that the present application is made by the plaintiff in that suit and by Mrs. Madden for revision of that order, under the provisions of Section 622.3. Upon the statements made in the petition an order was made requiring the Small Cause Court to send the records of the case to this Court and the judgment-creditors were called on to show cause why the order made by the Chief Ju...
Hem Chandra Bakshi Vs. Jadub Chandra Bakshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1901
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.99
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the appeal was improperly admitted. The facts lie within a very narrow compass and they may be stated thus. The present appellant filed a petition for the revocation of the Probate of the Will of his father granted to his brother who is the respondent in the appeal, and a petition of objection was put in by the respondent to the appellant's petition. Eventually, the two brothers agreed to refer, and they did refer, the whole matter to arbitration. The arbitrators made an award on the 24th July 1899, and, shortly afterwards, the matter came before the District Judge of Hughli on the 9th of August 1899 for final disposal in the presence of the Pleaders on both sides, and it was ordered 'that the Will of the late Radha Nath Bakshi, dated the 23rd Chait 1297, be declared to be genuine, and that the revocation case of the plaintiff be dismissed.' No objection was then raised by th...
Hara Lall Banerjee Vs. Nitambini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal315
Harington, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the grandson of one Kunjo Lall Banerjee, and the principal defendant (Sreemutty Nitambini Debi) is the widow of Kunjo Lall Banerjee. Kunjo Lall Banerjee died on the 9th April 1894, leaving considerable immoveable property, which was situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court.2. The principal defendant, Sreemutty Nitambini Debi, applied for probate of his will and obtained a grant on July 24th, 1894, on the allegation that there was at that time moveable property within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. On the 31st March 1898 the present suit was filed, and in this suit the plaintiff asks for an account and administration, that the will may be construed and the rights of the parties therein be declared, and that various other reliefs may be given.4. The whole of the immoveable property being outside the jurisdiction of this Court, it was necessary for the plaintiff to allege in his plaint some facts which would show that the cause of ac...
Boisogomoff Vs. Nahapiet Jute Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal587
Stanley, J.1. This is an action to recover damages for alleged breach of warranty. The pleadings are very simple and the evidence has been meagre. The plaintiff, who is a jute merchant in Calcutta, purchased from the defendant company in the end of September and beginning of October 1900 three lots of jute, containing in the (sic)ggregate 7,000 bales. According to the contracts the jute was to be of the standard quality of the mark known as T. S. N. Twos only. This mark is guaranteed to contain 40 per cent, of hessian warp. In the early part of: November the jute in respect of which the dispute has arisen was delivered in Calcutta in the flats Gorai and Khargosh and consisted of 6,000 bales.2. Upon examination of the jute the plaintiff complained to the defendant company that it was not equal to the standard quality of the mark. The defendant company thereupon sent a Mr. Emin to examine the jute, but the plaintiff's press-house manager would not allow the coolies and as sorters to open...
Kazi ZeamuddIn Ahmed Vs. Queen-empbess
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal504
1. It appears that on the 15th of May last, a serious riot took place in the village of Amlabo, of which the petitioner is the proprietor. He himself resides at Dacca, and it is not alleged that he had personal cognizance of the occurrence. It is stated, however, and may be taken as found, that his naib or agent Madhub Rai, who, according to the prosecution has been absconding since, aided and abetted the riot.2. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Naraingunge, who, on the authority of a case in the Allahabad High Court to which I shall presently refer, has Convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, the maximum penalty provided in that section. On the question of the part taken by the naib the Magistrate expressed himself as follows:It is proved that he actually accompanied the rioters, and that, after the riot, he has been absconding, that the rioters were tenants of his tahsil and peons in his e...
Tamasha Bibi Vs. Mathura Nath Bhowmik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal590
Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal must succeed upon the ground that no sufficient notice was served upon the defendants. There is only one appellant, but there were four defendants. It appears from the statement in the judgment of the lower Court that notice was served personally upon the appellant, but, if the notice was addressed, as it was in this case, to four defendants, then it seems to me that Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Rules made by the Bengal Government, dated the 21st December 1885, has not been complied with, and the provision that personal service shall be effected in the manner prescribed for service of summons on a defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the case: that only applies to the case where the notice is addressed to a single person, That being so, the whole suit fails, and the appeal must be allowed with costs, in all the Courts.Banerjee, J.2. I am of the same opinion....
Kong Yee Lone and Co. Vs. Lowjee Nanjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal461
Hobhouse, J.1. The respondent in this appeal, who is plaintiff in the original suit, sued the defendants, now appellants in the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon for the recovery of mom? secured by two promissory notes. The plaintiff is a rice-trader carrying on business under the firm of Robert Sutherland & Co. in Rangoon. The defendants carry on business with other persons under the firm of Kong Tee Lone as rice-millers, general merchants, and commission agents.2. The notes sued on are in the form following: Rangoon, 11th September 1899. Rs. 1,27,820. On demand we, the undersigned Kong Yee Lone & Co., promise to pay to Messrs. Robert Sutherland & Co., or order, the sum of rupees one lac twenty-seven thousand and eight hundred and twenty only for value received in difference on rice. (Signed in Chinese character.) Kong Yee Lone & Co. (in English). 'Note.--The translation of the above Chinese character is-- 'Kwong Ship Loang.'' Rangoon, 11th September 1899. Rs. 5,198-1. On d...
Nishi Kanta Banerjee Vs. Harish Chunder Neogy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal591
Maclean, C.J.1. This case comes before us on second appeal from the District Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs. The suit was one for malicious prosecution. The first Court dismissed the suit, but Mr. Pratt, now Mr. Justice Pratt, reversed that decision and gave a decree to the plaintiff for about 2,600 rupees.2. The defendant has appealed against that decree. An ingenious attempt was made by the Advocate-General, who appeared for the appellant, to allure us to go into the evidence in the case, but we felt bound to resist his invitation. We must take the facts as found by the Court below. In order to enable the plaintiff to succeed in this action, he must make out, the onus of proof being upon him--first, that he was innocent of the charge brought against him; secondly, that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause, in instituting the prosecution, and lastly, he must satisfy the Court that the defendant was actuated by feelings of malice in the course which he took. The questi...
In Re: Rudra NaraIn Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal479
Stanley, J.1. This matter comes before me on a``obtained by the petitioner, Rudra Narain Roy, calling on the Board of Examiners for Pleadership and Mukhtearship to shew cause, why the Board should not allow him to appear at the meaning examination for mukhtearship, and to appear at any other similar future examinations to be held by the Board, upon his fulfilling the conditions necessary under the law to qualify him to appear at such examinations.2. It appears from the petition that the petitioner applied for liberty to present himself for the examination for mukhtearship last year, supporting his application with certificates of good character and of having passed publicly an examination at the 'University, which under the rules are necessary before he can offer himself as a candidate.3. In the petition he states that in 1891, he was tried before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on a charge of having personated one Hemanga Chunder Kinla at the examination of that year. The charge was h...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »