Kolkata Court May 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.
Purna Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Dinabandhu Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal811
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question which has been referred for decision to this Bench, is as follows:--'Whether when it is found that notice has not been served under Section 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895, and a suit is brought for the purpose of setting aside the certificate and the sale and for recovery of possession of the property, Article 12 or Article 120 of the second Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act applies to such suit.' The solution of this question depends upon the effect to be attributed to a sale held without service of notice under Section 10. If the sale be regarded as an irregular or illegal sale, it is an obstacle which the plaintiff must get over before he can recover possession; on this view he must ask to have the sale set aside within one year from the date of confirmation, as provided in Article 12 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act. If, on the other hand, the sale be regarded as held without jurisdiction, and consequently null and void, ...
Surendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Atul Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal892
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit for an account by a principal against his agent. 'When the suit was instituted the principal was a minor and the suit was by his mother as his next friend. He subsequently attained majority and elected to go on with the suit, and is the present appellant. A preliminary decree for accounts was passed and accounts were taken by a commissioner. The matter then came before the Subordinate Judge; and he in effect affirmed the view of the commissioner and found that a sum of Rs. 4,581-1 anna was due from the plaintiff to the defendant instead of anything from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed to the District Judge, and his appeal was dismissed with costs. Hence the present appeal.2. The first question that arises in the circumstances. is whether certain advances made by the agent to the guardian of the minor which were found by both Courts to be expended for the benefit of the minor, can, in taking the accounts as between th...
Elem Molla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1907
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal315
Brett and Chitty, JJ.1. The two accused were placed on their trial before the Sessions Judge of Faridpur, charged, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with having committed murder by causing the death of one Nowai Khan. The two Assessors were of opinion that the guilt of the accused was not established by the evidence adduced. The Sessions Judge, however, disagreeing with the opinion of the Assessors, has found that the charge has been fully proved against them both, and has convicted and sentenced them to transportation for life.2. Both the accused have appealed. The case against them was that they, with members of their party, had a long-standing feud with Nowai Khan and members of his party; that litigation had been going on between thorn for the past two years and that a criminal case was pending on the 9th March 1907. On that date the deceased, Nowai Khan, went to the Dignagar hat, which was in a neighbouring village, apparently about midday, and was returning home a littl...
Abir Paramanik Vs. Jahar Mahmud Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal886
Mitra and Caspersz, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on the 18th September 1898 by the plaintiff, mortgagee on his mortgage. On the 20th February 1900, the parties came to an amicable adjustment of their dispute, and filed a petition of solehnamah. By that solehnamah the defendant agreed that a certain sum of money found to be due to the plaintiff should be paid in instalments up to the year 1312, the instalments being specified in the solehnamah. He further agreed that the mortgaged property should be sold in default of payment. The Court passed an order on the same day, the 20th February 1900, directing that a decree be drawn up in terms of the solehnamah. The decree was actually drawn up on the 23rd March following. The solehnamah was treated as a part of the decree, and the decree stated that the amount should be payable in six years, and that, on failure to pay any one instalment, the whole amount would become due and the mortgaged property would, in the meantime, re...
In Re S.K.H.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal729
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. (addressing Mr. H. who was present in Court). There can he no question upon the materials before the Court that you have been guilty of highly unprofessional conduct. It appears from your own letter of the 22nd of June 1904, that you made an arrangement with your client, Mrs. Moloney, without the intervention of any solicitor, to do work for her, at a fee of half of that which is the usual charge. I need hardly say, for it must be clear to every one, that that is quite unprofessional conduct, but the second charge against you, is of a much more serious nature-the charge which springs from your letter of the 6th of September, 1904. In that letter you say: 'In this case I have the offer to work professionally against you, and as the plaint of your case was settled by me, I do not like to accept the brief without giving you notice that unless you pay me my fee, 10 gold mohurs, for refusing the brief, I will take up the case against you as you have practically gi...
Maharaja Sir Jotindra Mohun Tagore Vs. Emam Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1907
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.633
1. This appeal arises out of a suit, brought by the plaintiff to recover rent and damages for the years 1309, 1310 and 1311, M.S. from the defendant on the strength of a registered kabuliat.2. The defendant admitted execution of the kabuliat, but stated that he was made to execute it under pressure, that he never entered into possession, but as soon as he discovered the unprofitable character of the tenure, he tendered a notice of surrender.3. The District Judge has found that the defendant has failed to establish his claim to relief on the ground of coercion. He has also found that the notice of surrender was duly served on the plaintiff and has held that under Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant was entitled to surrender.4. The plaintiff appeals to us and urges that the defendant was bound by the terms of the contract and not entitled to surrender the land before the expiry of the term of the lease.5. We have examined the lease. It appears that it was a regi...
Gadadhar Bose Vs. Radha Charan Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal868
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The real question in this suit is a question of boundaries. The question was whether the land in dispute appertained to the plaintiff's mehal or to the defendants' jaigir taluk. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, and the District Judge has decreed it. The question of boundaries is generally a question of fact. But it is urged for the' appellants, the defendants who have appealed, that in arriving at his conclusion, the learned Judge has fallen into certain errors of law If they can establish that, there may be grounds for setting aside the decree.2. It appears that there was a decree in a previous suit, No. 90 of 1865 of the Munsif of Naraingunge, in which it is said that a certain thak map, to which I shall have occasion to refer more minutely in a moment, was directed to be amended, I ought to have stated that the plaintiff is an auction purchaser at a sale for arrears of revenue of taluk No. 6047 held on the 26th of March 1901, and the objec...
Herbert Manners and ors. Vs. Chatter Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.531
1. The plaintiffs in this suit allege that they are ticcadars of two estates bearing Touzi Nos. 5672 and 5674, and of a moiety of another bearing Touzi No. 5518 in Mouzah Charo under a lease bearing date the 15th December 1901. The lease, it is stated, took effect retrospectively from 1307 Fusli, that is to say from 1900. Prior to the plaintiffs taking this lease the whole of the Kilas Nos. 5672 and 5674 and half of Kita No. 5518 were under lease to Digambur Singh from 1284 to 1291. He sublet them to the Jitwarpur Factory, of which the Almasnugger Indigo Factory was an outwork under a registered Katkena lease dated the 19th October 1876. The lease to the Factory ran up to the end of Digambur's lease, namely to 1891. On the expiry of that lease the defendant 2nd party and his mother who were the landlords gave a lease of certain properties including these three at present in, suit to defendants 1st party the proprietors of the Almasnugger Factory, on the 19th of October 1884, for 15 yea...
Rajani Kanta Biswas Vs. Ekkowri Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal689
Rampini and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The facts of this case are as follows: The plaintiff, Ekkowri Das, alleged that he had a jama of 2 bighas, which he held under the principal defendant. He was in want of money to meet the expenses of a marriage, and accordingly sold this jama to the defendant, Bipin Krishna Ray, on the 23rd Baisakh 1306. The following day, i.e. the 24th Baisakh 1306, he took a settlement of the jama under Bipin Krishna Ray at a rental of Rs. 20, and has remained in possession of the land ever since. It is to be noted that this Bipin Krishna Ray was not originally made a defendant. The suit Was instituted on the 15th September 1903, and Bipin Krishna Ray was not made a party to the suit till the 23rd June 1904.2. The plaintiff goes on in his plaint to say that after the sale by him of the land to Bipin Krishna Ray the latter sent the rent for 1308 and 1309 by money order to the landlord, the defendant No. 1, but the defendant No. 1 refused to receive it. 'Subse-quently, the...
Kedar Nath Bhandary Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal863
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Kedar Nath Bhandary, against the defendants, the Corporation of Calcutta, to recover damages for wrongful dismissal.2. The plaintiff alleges in his plaint that in the month of February 1901, he was engaged by the then Chairman of the Corporation as a servant of the defendants upon the following terms, viz., 'that the plaintiff should be appointed permanently--such employment to continue at least for 7 or 8 years provided the plaintiff gave satisfaction and his work was approved.' The amount of the salary at which the plaintiff was engaged is not stated in the plaint, but I have been informed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that it was at the rate of Rs. 150 a month.3. The plaintiff further alleges that in the course of his employment his salary was increased to Its. 165 per mensem in January 1902, then to Rs. 175 per mensem in January 1904, and finally to Rs. 185 per mensem in January 1906 and that no complaints were ever...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »