Kolkata Court July 1902 Judgments
Mahammad Faiz Chowdhury Vs. E.F. Sandys
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1902
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.737
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for account and for the delivery of account papers, instituted by a common manager, Mahammad Faiz Chowdhury, appointed as such by the District Judge of Tipperah under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, against Mr. E. F. Sandys, an ex-common manager. The defendant was discharged from the office of common manager and Mahammad Faiz, the plaintiff, was appointed in his place as the common manager.2. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the right to sue for accounts was in the owners of the estate and not in the common manager, and that, at any rate, the common manager could not maintain a suit such as was brought without the express sanction of the District Judge, and that such sanction had not been obtained, The suit, we may here mention, was a suit not only for account, but also for recovery of such sums of money which, upon the account being taken, might be found due by the defendant to the estate; and th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Zawar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal142
H.T. Prinsep, Offg. C.J.1. This reference has been made in consequence of the judgment in Empress v. Haran Chunder Mitter (1880) 6 C.L.R. 390, the learned Judge who is holding the Sessions having reason to differ from the opinion expressed in that ease.' I may state at once that we learn under the authority of the reporter of that case, who is now a member of this Bench, that Mr. Justice Wilson, whose opinion is there reported, doubted the correctness of that report or expressed his opinion that it was had in law: and so far as our experience goes, we are not aware that that case has ever been followed in this Court, and it is not certainly followed in any reported case.2. On the point referred to us, I am of opinion that the course taken by the learned Counsel for the accused, in this case, was not correct. He was not competent to tender the entire record, of the proceedings of the Magistrate's Court, for the purpose of laying before the Jury any statements which might be contained th...
Tag this Judgment!Akhoy Kumar Soor Vs. Bejoy Chand Mohatap
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal813
Hill and Brett, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated thh 22nd April, 1901 allowing an objection raised by the respondent in certain execution proceedings to which he had been made a party by the appellant. The order was to the effect that no execution could proceed against him.2. The appellant, Akhoy Kumar Soor, was the mortgagee of one Hira Lal Sarkar who, by a bond dated the 25th November,' 1886, mortgaged with other property his one-third share in the disputed taluk Rampore. The present respondent, the Maharaja of Burdwan, was the owner of the whole of the superior patni tenure. In 1891 the appellant, Akhoy Kumar Soor, sued on his mortgage and obtained a decree against his mortgagor, Hira Lal Sarkar, on the 11th January, 1892, which, on the 26th May, 1892, was made absolute.3. Meanwhile, the mortgagor and his co-sharers had defaulted in paying their darpatni rent for the years 1889 to 1892; and, in consequence, the Maharaja, the patnid...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Serang Vs. Putee Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal738
Hill and Brett, JJ.1. We think the learned District Judge has fallen into the error, which more than one writer on Mahomedan law have referred to in their works, of supposing that the 'distant kindred' are restricted to the four classes, who are usually enumerated as primarily standing in that relation to the deceased. We find, however, in Mr. Rumsey's work on the Mahomedan law of Inheritance, which is a work of some authority, as well as in Baillie, which is also authoritative, that the right of inheriting extends to the whole kindred of the deceased, and that it is an error to suppose that the right is limited to certain degrees or classes of relations. This observation Rumsey makes in a note to a passage on page 12 of his work, where he defines the 'distant kindred' as including all relations, who are neither sharers nor residuaries. The appellant is not only a relation, but is a near relation of the deceased; and, in our opinion, he comes within the definition which we have just re...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Gopal Sadhani Vs. A. B. Miller
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal803
Hill and Brett, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 23rd November 1901, dealing with the distribution of a portion of the sale-proceeds of certain mortgaged property. The property appears to have been subject to eight several mortgages of various dates, but the 6th, 7th and 8th mortgagees have no enforceable rights against the fund, which is now under distribution. The mortgagor, one Mr. Chick, was the owner of a plot of land in the outskirts of Calcutta, containing five bighas, and at the time of the first in the series of the mortgages, a house stood upon it which was then numbered 170. While the land was in that condition, he executed a mortgage on the 28fch of September 1885 to one D. J. Bagram, for a sum of ten thousand rupees, bearing interest at 7 1/2 per cent, per annum. This mortgage extended to a moiety of the land, and, as we understand, of the house. On the same date, the mortgagor executed another mortgage to th...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nandan Goswami Vs. Ashutosh Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal688
Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the District Judge of Bankura under Section 214 of Act VI of 1882 (the Indian Companies Act), dated the 8th June 1901, directing the Directors of 'The Chhatna Lakshmi Narianpore Helping Fund Company, Limited,' to refund to the Company Rs. 11,698-12-5 with interest, and a further sum of 264 rupees 7 annas to certain shareholders described as the Bankati people. These persons were entitled to receive, and were recorded as having received, certain sums from the Company. They really received less than the amounts recorded' This sum of rupees 264-7 represents the difference between the amounts they actually received and those they are recorded as having received.2. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants (1) that there had been a voluntary winding up, and that therefore the District Judge had no jurisdiction to wind up the Company, and (2) that the order under Section 214 is bad, as it is made against the Directo...
Tag this Judgment!Peamatha Chandra Roy Vs. Khetra Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal651
Banerjee and Pratt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act by the plaintiffs, appellants, for an order absolute for the sale of certain mortgaged property. Upon that application being made, the defendant-respondent raised an objection on the ground that the mortgage debt was paid off, after the decree under Section 88 was made. The first Court, whilst holding that the objection could be entertained, came to the conclusion, upon the evidence, that the alleged payment was not proved. On appeal by the defendant the lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the first Court and held that the payment was proved; and it has accordingly refused the application under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. Against this decision of the lower Appellate Court the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal, and it is contended on their behalf, first, that the Courts below were wrong in holding that Section 258 of the Code of Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Protap Chunder Dey Vs. Toolsey Dass Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal793
Stephen, J.1. This is an, application to file an award made under the Arbitration Act of 1899. An objection has been taken to the award, and I have, been asked to remit it to the arbitrators. It is argued, however, that I have no power to do this on account of Section 520 of the Civil Procedure Code under which an award may not be remitted except on certain grounds which do not exist in this case. I do not think, however, that Section 520 applies to arbitrations under the Arbitration Act. Reading the Code and the Act together, it appears to me plain that Section 506 to 522 of the Code apply to arbitrations in a suit and Section 523 to 526, now superseded by the Arbitration Act, to arbitrations initiated by the parties.2. I therefore consider that I have a discretion to remit this award for the reconsideration of the arbitrators under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act.3. The ground on which the application to file is resisted and on which I am asked to remit this award is, that the awar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›