Kolkata Court June 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.
Durgagati Debi Vs. Saurabini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1001
Brett and Gupta, JJ.1. The present appeal arises out of an application, made under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act, for the revocation of letters of administration with the will attached granted to Umasundari Debi, the mother of the testator on the 21st of May 1875.2. The testator Paramatma Lal Goswami executed a will on the 5th of April 1875 and died the- same day, leaving him surviving his mother Umasundari, and his wife Saurabini, who was at that time enceinte. On the 6th April the mother Umasundari applied to the Sub-Registrar, and had the will registered at her house on that day. Then on (he 24th of April, she applied for letters of administration with the will attached; and on the 21st May 1875 an order was passed granting the issue of letters of administration with the will attached, and on the 18th June 1875 letters of administration were in fact issued to her.3. Saurabini Debi, the widow of the deceased, gave birth to a daughter Durgagati, the present applican...
Thakurmani Singh Vs. Dai Rani Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1079
Brett and Gupta, JJ.1. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff Rai Thakurmani Singh Bahadur on a mortgage bond executed in his favour on the 25th October 1890 by Mussumat Daimani Koeri, the elder of two widows of Babu Mshendra Narayan Singh, deceased. The case for the plaintiff was that Babu Mahendra Narayan was heavily involved in debt at the time of his death, and that he left him surviving his two widows Mussumat Daimaui Koeri and Mussumat Dai Rani Koeri and no children. The two widows, who took a joint estate in his property, partitioned it and the debts between them. After the partition, Mussumat Daimani borrowed Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 from Babu Balajit Singh, and on the 25th March 1888 executed two mortgage bonds for those sums in his favour. The money covered by these two bonds was, it was alleged, borrowed for legal necessity,2. The Rs. 500 was male up of a sum of Rs. 150 borrowed to carry on litigation connected with M. Thalba, one of the properties left by her husband, a...
Ganges Manufacturing Company, Limited Vs. Indra Chand and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1169
Harington, J.1. Those are two applications to file awards in accordance with the Rules made under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. The cases arose out of certain contracts, which were entered into by the defendants, to sell to the plaintiffs certain lots of jute. The plaintiff complained that the jute in question in some cases was of inferior quality to that contracted to be sold and in others they complained of short delivery.3. The defendants did not admit that the plaintiff's complaints were well founded, and consequently the disputes, which arose between the parties in respect of these jute contracts, were referred by the plaintiffs under the arbitration clause in the contract, to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration was conducted by that body. The defendants declined to appear on the arbitration and awards were made in favour of the plaintiffs and it is those awards that the plaintiffs now ask to have filed.4. The defendants contend that the awards ought not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›