Kolkata Court January 1909 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.
Ambica Prosad Dass Vs. J.C. Galstaun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.85
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit for the specific performance of an alleged agreement by the defendant to grant the plaintiff a lease of certain premises, known as No. 2, Chowringhee in Calcutta. The defence is that there was no concluded agreement between the parties, and that certain letters which passed between them amounted to negotiation and negotiation only. The facts lie within a very narrow compass. There is no dispute that, on the 25th of May 1906, the plaintiff and the defendant had an interview at Kidderpur about the granting of a lease by the defendant to the plaintiff and that the effect of that conversation was embodied in a letter which the defendant's solicitors wrote to the plaintiff on the 26th of May. The letters runs as follows:Re lease of No. 2, Chowringhee Road.Dear Sir,With reference to the writer's interview with you last evening when it was verbally agreed between you and our client Babu Ambica Prosad Dass that a lease of the above property should be gran...
Bejoy Chandra Nag and ors. Vs. Banku Behari Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.116
1. This was a suit for recovery of two plots of land and for declaration of the plaintiff's right of way over a road between them. The only question that arises for decision is whether the joinder of these two claims is barred under Section 44 of the Code of 1882. The Munsiff and the Subordinate Judge for different reasons have both held that Section 44 is not in the plaintiffs' way. The defendants have obtained a Rule from this Court to show cause why their orders should not be set aside.2. It is conceded by the learned pleader for the petitioners that if the right of way such as is claimed in this suit is such immovable property as is contemplated by Section 44, then that section will not bar the present suit. Immovable property is defined in the General Clauses Act as including land and benefits to arise out of land unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context of the provision of law in which this term occurs.3. The questions, therefore, before us are, first is a rig...
South British Fire and Marine Insurance Co., of New Zealand Vs. Brojan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.573
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of Chitty, J.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to recover the sum of Rs. 11, 630 undera policy of assurance issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, on a cargo of jute said by the plaintiff to have been shipped at Ghiur on the 14th Septembar 1906, and which the plaintiff alleges by his plaint was subsequently destroyed by fire on the night of 14th October 1906.3. The policy in question which is dated the 11th October 1906 provides that, subject to the conditions and warranties herein specified, the defendant assured the cargo consisting of 977 drams of jute of the value of Rs. 11,630 on a voyage from Ghiur to Calcutta against the risks and the. perils of the voyage including fire risk.4. The warranties endorsed on the face of the policy, so far as material, are as follows: 'It is farther warranted (2) that the risk of loss or damage by fire is not insured hereby unless ...
Ramtohal Dusadh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal385,1Ind.Cas.868
Holmwood and Ryves, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause, why the order of the Sessions Judge summarily rejecting the appeal in this case should not be set aside on the ground that the vakil, who filed it, had not a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same, inasmuch as he was not prepared to argue on the day the petition was presented.2. We observe that the Sessions Judge of Patna had addressed a letter to the District Magistrate on the subject, and this has been forwarded to us apparently without a covering letter. This is irregular. No Explanation has been called for from the Sessions Judge, and he himself notes that the Rule was not issued on the ground that his Court did not exercise its discretion wisely. The real question in the case is whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of his appeal.3. Now it appears to us, and it is in accordance with the experience of both of us in two d...
Subal Ram Dutt Vs. Jagadanunda Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.288
1. This was a rule obtained by the Plaintiff calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the lower Court should not be set aside on the ground that the Judge was not precluded from dealing with the suit by Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act.2. It appears that the Plaintiff brought a suit in the Small Cause Court of Sylhet against Defendant No. 1, making the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 pro forma, Defendants, for the recovery of Rs. 176 and odd annas, alleging that the Defendant No. I mortgaged certain properties to Defendant No. 2 and the latter obtaining a decree on that mortgage and selling the mortgaged property in satisfaction of the decree, the Plaintiff purchased that property for himself. The Plaintiff further alleges that he was assured, that as a matter of fact that property had not been mortgaged previously to anybody else, nor was there any incumbrance on it, which fact also appears to have been mentioned in the mortgage deed in favour of the pro forma Defe...
Emperor Vs. Morgan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal302
Holmwood and Ryves, JJ.1. Corporal Morgan and Private Lawson of the Highland Light Infantry were placed on their trial before the Sessions Judge of Darjeeling and a Jury on the 16th of November 1908. The charge against them, as amended in the Court of Session, was framed under Section 304A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and ran as follows: 'That you, on or about the 25th day of October 1908, at Aloobari Busti, each abetted the other in the causing of death by a rash or negligent act, each being present when the act, which resulted in death, was committed, and the act abetted being committed in consequence of the abetment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 804A/114 of the Indian Penal Code.' We will refer later on to the wording of this charge. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and, at the conclusion of the trial, the Jury returned the following verdict: 'We find that the accused, or one of them, caused the deceased's death. We find t...
Udoy Chandra Karji Vs. Nripendra Narayan Bhup
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal287
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. A record of rights having been prepared the plaintiff was recorded in it as a tenure-holder and his tenure as not held at a fixed rent. He then brought a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act before the Settlement Officer, who decreed the suit and held that the tenure of the plaintiff was very old, in fact, existing from a period of 150 years before 1894. On the defendant appealing to the Subordinate Judge, that learned Officer held that, inasmuch as the original tenure, of which the rent was 4 Rupees 8 annas, was split up into two tenancies in 1291 (1884), that old tenure ceased to exist and under the new contract instead of that old tenure there sprang up two new tenancies at the rental of Rs. 2-4-0 each. On that ground he held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim that his tenure had existed from the time of the Permanent Settlement.2. Our attention has been drawn to Clause (2) of Section 50 of the Bengal T...
Abu Mahomed Vs. S.C. Chunder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal345,1Ind.Cas.827
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The facts of this case lie within a very narrow compass: It appears that by a contract dated the 2nd of December 1904, Messrs. Ebrahim Hajee Sulaiman & Co. purchased from the defendant a ascertain quantity of B. twills,-so many hundred bags; delivery from January 1905, so many bags a month. Certain of those bags were delivered in pursuance of the terms of the contract, but in March 1905 the defendant did not deliver the bags deliverable for that month, and loss, as the plaintiff says, resulted to the purchasers from that default on the part of the vendor. The purchasers, Messrs. Ebrahim Hajee Sulaiman & Co., eventually became insolvent, and the Official Assignee of Bombay conveyed the outstanding assets and their interests in the executory contracts to one Sulaiman Cassim Peroo Mahomed, who again assigned his interest in those contracts to the plaintiff by an assignment deed, dated the 5th of July 1906. The Official Assignee by his assignment, which is dated ...
BasiruddIn Ahmed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.48
1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment passed by the Sessions Judge upon the unanimous finding of the jury that the accused Basiruddin Ahmed Sheik was guilty in regard to all the ten receipts upon which he had been charged. There appear to have been certain other charges amounting altogether to the sum of Rs. 46-11; but the learned Judge very properly only tried three of the charges and reserved the others. The amount, therefore, for which the accused was tried in this case was approximately Rs. 5-10. We can find no misdirection in the charge of the learned Judge to the jury.2. It is urged before us that the use of the expression 'implied contract' is erroneous. Possibly, it is not a happy expression. But the expression which the Judge should have used would have been a far stronger one and would have gone far more against the accused person, for it appears to us that when a person accepts a s...
Uday Chandra Karji Vs. Maharaja Nripendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.4
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. A record of rights having been prepared the plaintiff was recorded in it as a tenure holder and his tenure as not held at fixed rent. He then brought a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act before the Settlement Officer, who decreed the suit and hold that the tenure of the plaintiff was very old, in fact existing from period of 150 years before 1884. On the defendant appealing to the Special Judge that learned officer held that, inasmuch as the original tenure of which the rent was 4 Rupees 8 Annas, was split up into two tenancies in 1291 (1884) that old tenure ceased to exist and under the new contract instead of that tenure there sprang up two new tenancies at the rental of Rs. 2-4 each. On that ground he held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim that his tenure had existed from the time of the permanent settlement.2. Our attention has been drawn to Clause (2) of Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the learned pleader for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »