Kolkata Court January 1907 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.
Satish Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Ahara Prasad Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal403
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Birbhum, passed on an application under Section 558 of the Civil Procedure Code for the re-admission of an appeal. The facts are that on the day fixed for the bearing of the appeal, viz., the 22nd August 1905, the appellant's pleader applied for time, and stated that he was unable to argue the appeal. Time was not allowed, and the appeal was dismissed. On the 15th November following, the appellant prayed for the re-admission of the appeal on the ground that he had been prevented by sufficient cause from prosecuting his appeal, but the learned Judge declined to go into the merits of the application, and considered himself bound by the ruling of this Court in the case of Watson & Co. v. Ambika Dasi (1899) 4 C.W.N. 237 to hold that Section 558 did not apply.2. The appellant now appeals to this Court, and reliance is placed principally on the case of Cooke v. The Equitable Coal Company (1904) 8 C.W.N. 621, in which a...
Rameswar Singh Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal470
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. The appellant, the Maharaja of Durbhanga, commenced the action, out of which the present appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purneah, against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Bengal and North-Western Railway Company, for an injunction, for damages on account of permanent injury to a ferry and for other incidental reliefs. The Company defendants are the owners of a Railway line which, some time before 1898, was proposed to be extended from Hajipur to Katihar; the extension passes through the zamindary of the plaintiff, and had to be carried across the river Koshi, which flows through that zamindary. A bridge had consequently to be constructed across the river, the banks and bed of which are part and parcel of the estate of the plaintiff. The Maharaja had a ferry across the river, near the place where the bridge has now been constructed, and it is alleged that this ferry, which had existed for many years past, has-been ...
Tara Chand Samanta and ors. Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1907
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.184
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan for setting aside the sale of an entire mehal for arrears of Government Revenue.2. The plaintiffs and pro forma defendants were aymadars with varying shares in the mehal and the allegation was that the sale was brought about by the fraud of defendant No. 2 himself one of the co-sharers and that he himself purchased the property benami in the name of defendant No. 1.3. It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to go into the evidence on the merits inasmuch as the learned pleader for the plaintiffs appellants admits that he cannot contend that he has succeeded in establishing fraud on the evidence as it now stands, but it is urged that there has not been a fair trial in the Court below and that the case should be remanded for a further hearing on three grounds:1. That the defendant No. 2 in spite of repeated attempts to procure his attendance for examination before the Court did not app...
JasimuddIn Biswas Vs. Bhuban Jelini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal456
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the present plaintiffs appellants to recover rent for a certain fishery from the defendants respondents at a rental, which it was alleged was agreed to in a solenama executed by both the parties in suit No. 263 of 1893 in the Court of the Munsiff of Bongong in the year 1893; or, in the event of their not being found entitled to recover the sum claimed from the defendants as tenants, then on the allegation that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the same sum from the defendants as compensation for use and occupation of the jalkar.2. It appears that in 1893 the plaintiffs brought a suit against some of the defendants claiming damages from them for fish, which they had wrongfully caught in the jalkar. The claim was fixed at Rs. 200. Before the case was disposed of both the parties came to a compromise, and certain other persons, including others of the defendants in the present suit, were made parties in that suit. Afterwards a dec...
Sarat Kumar Roy Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal443
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiffs who are contractors submitted a tender for the construction of certain Municipal buildings. Their tender was accepted and a contract was executed. That contract contained a clause stipulating that all disputes should be referred to arbitration.2. Disputes arose, and on the 27th June 1906 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant Corporation stating that, unless their claim was settled within a week it was their intention to bring a suit. After the receipt of this notice the Corporation on two occasions, viz. the 13th July 1906 and the 19th August 1906, called upon the plaintiffs to go to arbitration. Nothing, however, came of this, and on the 11th September 1906 the plaint in this suit was filed, the defendant being served with the summons on the 12th November 1906, and a copy of the plaint being served on the defendant on the 21st November 1906. Then on the 30th November the defendant Corporation took out a summons for an order that they might have further t...
Sarat Chandra Bisu Vs. Tarini Prasad Pal Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal491
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The only question which arises on this appeal is whether the suit is barred under the special limitation to be found in Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having regard to Article 11 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. The whole question turns upon whether or not the Court inquired into the matter referred to in that section, so as to make the order which it passed under that section conclusive as against the present plaintiff unless he brought a suit within a year from the date of that order. What then we have to look at are the circumstances under which that order was made, and to ascertain whether or not any enquiry was held within the meaning of that section. It is a condition precedent, in my opinion, to passing an order under that section, so as to make it conclusive unless a suit is brought within a year, that the Court shall enquire into the matters of resistance, etc., and it is imperative under the language of the section that the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›