Kolkata Court December 1906 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.
Juggernath Augurwallah Vs. E.A. Smith
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal173
Francis W. Maclen, C.J.1. The facts in this case are scarcely disputed. By a contract dated the 28th of November 1905, the plaintiffs sold to the defendants, E.A. Smith & Co., 1,000 bale's of jute of a particular mark; the goods were to be placed alongside the exporting vessel during the month of November and to be paid for in cash against the mate's receipts. The goods were placed alongside the steam-ship Uganda under instructions from the defendants' firm and were subsequently shipped on board the vessel and two mate's receipts, dated the 3rd and 4th of December, for 875 and 125 bales respectively, made out in the names of Smith & Co., were obtained by the plaintiffs. These mate's receipts together with the plaintiff's bill against Smith & Co. for Rs. 46,000 and the usual measurement and weighment certificates were on the 5th of December made over to Smith & Co. for examination, and Smith & Co. gave the plaintiffs on the same day the usual receipt containing the statement that the do...
Deo Nandan Pershad Vs. Meghu Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal57
Rampini, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Deo Nandan Pershad and others, to eject the defendant Meghu from some land. The plaintiffs are auction-purchasers at a sale for arrears of revenue. They allege that the defendant Meghu is a trespasser, having been inducted into the land by the former proprietor, Fudri Babu, at a time when his interest in it had passed away from him.2. The learned District Judge has held that the defendant is a yearly tenant and as such entitled to a notice to quit, and as no such notice was given him he has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.3. The plaintiffs appeal and contend that the finding of fact has been arrived at in a wrong way, inasmuch as the Judge has not given due weight to the fact which he himself has found, viz., that the defendant was inducted into the land in 1307, when Fudri Babu, the defendant's lessor, had ceased to be the owner of the land, and further that the defendant being a mere tenant-at-will is entitled ...
In Re: Bomanjee Cowasjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal129
Davey, J.1. This is an appeal from an order, dated the 21st March 1906, of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, by which order the appellant was dismissed from his office as an advocate of that Court.2. The appellant was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn on the 17th November 1891, having previously been admitted as an attorney of the Calcutta High Court in 1879, and from the year 1881 was an advocate of the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon, until the establishment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, and from that date he has been an advocate of the last-named Court.3. On the 9th March 1906 the appellant was served with an Order of the Chief Court, whereby he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed or suspended from his office as advocate of the Court in the event of two charges which had been framed by the Court, or either of them, being found to be true. These charges were as follows:1. That you, whilst employed as an advocate for the prosecut...
Sundar Koer Vs. Rai Sham Krishen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal150
Davey, J.1. This case comes before their Lordships on appeal and cross-appeal. The questions between the parties arose in taking the accounts between mortgagor and mortgagee. The appellant in the principal appeal is the widow and representative of Raja Rameswar Pershad Narayan Singh, the mortgagor and original defendant. The mortgagees, who were plaintiffs in the suit, were the respondents to the principal appeal, and the appellants in the cross-appeal.2. The object of the suit was to enforce payment by sale of the mortgaged properties, of sums of money owing on two mortgage bonds dated respectively the 19th June 1888 and the 15th June 1891. By the earlier bond the principal sum secured was Rs. 4,35,000 with interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem, equivalent to 10 1/2 per cent. per annum, and by the first, condition of the bond it was agreed that the interest should be paid every six months, and in case of default the mortgagee should pay interest on interest, at the rat...
Surendra Nath Ghose Vs. Hemangini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal83
Chunder Madhub Ghose and Caspersz, JJ.1. This is an appeal in a suit by two minors, of whom one has now attained majority. They brought their action to obtain a declaration that a certain solenama, dated the 24th April 1901, filed by the defendant, and the decree, dated the 25th April 1901, passed in a partition suit, on the basis of that solenama, were invalid, inoperative, null and void. It appears that the compromise in question was sanctioned by the Court, and the sanctioning order was signed by the pleaders on both sides. Subsequently, an application for review was filed on behalf of a certain lady acting as guardian of the minor plaintiffs in the partition suit, but that application was withdrawn without any decision being arrived at upon it. Then a regular suit was instituted, which, also, was withdrawn. After this, the litigation giving rise to this second appeal commenced.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, in his decision on the 5th, 6th and 8th issues, found that there was no ...
Umesh Chandra Banerjee Vs. Khulna Loan Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal92
Chunder Madhub Ghose and Caspersz, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit described as one for contribution. The suit was instituted against three persons--Umesh Chandra Banerjee, Matangini Debi and Brojendra Nath Banerjee, they being the recorded share-holders in a putni taluk, which had been mortgaged to the plaintiffs, the Khulna Loan Company, by Matangini Debi, Brojendra Nath Banerjee and Akshayanund Banerjee. Subsequent to this mortgage, this lastmentioned individual executed a kobala in favour of Umesh Chandra, and, as we gather, Umesh Chandra on the strength of his purchase applied for the registration of his name in the zemindar's sherista in place of Akshayanund; and this was allowed. Subsequent to this transaction, there were various proceedings in Court between other parties and Umesh Chandra, in which he (Umesh Chandra) put himself forward as the real holder of the taluk in place of Akshayanund. Recently, however, the putnidars defaulted to pay the rent due from them to the...
Rash Behary Dey Vs. Bhowani Churn Bhose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal97
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a suit in this Court to restrain the defendant by injunction from proceeding with a suit instituted against the plaintiff in the Small Cause Court.2. The suit in this Court is for the specific performance of an agreement for lease of certain premises and was instituted on the 17th August 1906. The suit in the Small Cause Court was instituted three days afterwards, on the 20th August 1906, and is for ejectment.3. It is obvious that the same questions will arise in both these suits, and, without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the application I think it is quite clear that convenience requires that an injunction should be granted in terms of the application restraining the defendant from proceeding with the suit in the Small Cause Court pending the hearing of the suit in this Court.4. It is contended however by Mr. Dass (who appears for the defendant), on the authority of the decision in Jairamdas Ganesh das v. Zamonlal...
Kazi Newaz Khoda Vs. Ram Jadu Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal109
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Burdwan, dated 6th January 1905.2. The suit arises out of a suit brought by a putnidar for the possession of certain chowkidari chakran land, which the Government has made over to the zemindar, after cancelling the chowkidari chakran holding. The plaintiff putnidar sued for possession of these lands, alleging that he is entitled to them under the terms of this putni lease.3. The District Judge has given the plaintiff a decree on condition that he pays to Government the additional revenue assessed by Government on the land.4. The zemindar defendants 1 to 3, and certain lessees under the zemindars, defendants 10 and 11, appeal. On their behalf it is contended; (i) that the resumption of the land by Government creates a new title to the land in the zemindars and that the putnidar has accordingly no right to it; (ii) that if the land passes to the putnidar, he must pay a proportionate rent for it to the zemindar, a...
Berckefeld Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal73
Brett and Gupta, JJ.1. The appellant Mr. Berckefeld, Manager of the Bally Khal Bone Mills, has been convicted under Section 290 Indian Penal Code, of committing a public nuisance, and has been punished with the maximum penalty, a fine of Rs. 200.2. The nuisance complained of was that be kept a stack of bones, weighing about 100 tons, in the mill-yard exposed to the sun and rain for a time sufficient to cause them on the 17th July last to become rotten and to emit a smell so offensive as to cause common injury or annoyance to persons living in the vicinity and using a public road passing by the mill building. The prosecution was instituted in consequence of information given by Mr. Macpherson, the Manager of the Baranagore Jute Mill, which adjoins the compound of the Bally Khal Bone Mills, and after a local enquiry had been made by Mr. Ballantine, Sub-Deputy Magistrate.3. It seems that on the 1st December 1905 in consequence of a complaint made the District Magistrate passed an order un...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›