Kolkata Court May 1909 Judgments
Sheikh Jaki Mamood Vs. Dino Bandhu Bhattachrajee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.367
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in kind. The defence of the tenant was that the plot for which the rent was claimed lay within another holding which he hold at a money rent, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to separate rent in kind for this plot. The lower appellate Court found that this plot was not included in the defendant's nagdi holding, and accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiffs for the value of the rent in kind. The defendant appeals to this Court.2. The first point taken on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in admitting in evidence certain butwara papers. The learned pleader for the appellant relies on the cases of Drobo Moyee Gosmanee. v. Dhurmo Doss Koondoo 10 W.R. 197 and Gopal Chunder Shalia v. Madhub Chunder Shaha 21 W.R. 29. In the first of those oases, however, it is not stated what the papers were which the Court held to be inadmissible in evidence, and in the second case the papers excluded were chittas. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Nandan Vs. Tarack Nath Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal917
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the Chief Presidency Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the conviction and order under Act XIII of 1859 passed against the petitioner, should not be set aside. We have heard the learned Counsel against the Rule on behalf of the employer and the learned vakil in support of the Rule. It appears that, on the 20th April 1907, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the firm of Messrs. Khan & Co. to work for them for a period of three years as a grinder and polisher of surgical instruments on a salary of Rs. 30 per mensem. He received an advance of Rs. 54, and he agreed to repay it by monthly instalments of Re. 1-8. He continued to work in the firm for about 18 months, and then he left his employment. If the agreement stopped short at the point mentioned, it is possible that the case would come within the provisions of Act XIII of 1859. But it seems to us, having regard to the agreement in this case, that that Act has no ...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Nandan Vs. Tarak Nath Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.413
1. This is a Rule on the Chiefs Presidency Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the conviction and order under Act XIII of 1859 passed against the petitioner should pot be set aside. We have heard the learned Counsel against the Rule on behalf of the employer and the learned Vakil in support of the Rule. It appears that, on the 20th April, 1907, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the firm of Messrs. Khan & Co. to work for them for a period of three years as a grinder and polisher of surgical instruments on a salary of Rs. 30 per mensem. He received an advance of Rs. 54, and he agreed to repay it by monthly instalments of Re. 1-8. He continued to work in the firm for about 18 months, and then he left his employment. If the agreement stopped short at the point mentioned, it is possible that the case would come within the provisions of Act XIII of 1859. But it seems to us, having regard to the agreement in this case, that that Act has no application. We have r...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mohammad Abdul Aziz Vs. Baijnath Goenka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.380
1. This is an appeal by the auction purchaser at a revenue sale.2. The sale took place on the 24th August 1903 when the property was purchased by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff and the defendant 2nd party were maliks of the shares sold. The plaintiff alleged that he had paid his share of the Government revenue, that his co-sharers in collusion with the purchaser defaulted and caused the sale fraudulently, that notices under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Sale Law were not issued and served, and that the price fetched at the sale was inadequate.3. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the purchaser had obtained a sale certificate from the Collector, that this certificate was conclusive evidence that all notices required to be served or posted under Act XI of 1859 were duly served and posted, and that the title of the purchaser who had obtained the certificate could not be impeached or affected by reason of any omission in formality or irregularity in the service or...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Das Vs. Arsad Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1909
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.721
1. The facts in this case as they have been laid before us are as follow?: One Ghafar Ali defendant No. 3 held a taluk of ten annas of a certain estate and a howla in the remaining six-annas. We are informed by the learned Pleader for the respondents that the lands in the taluk are entirely separate and distinct from the lands in the howla. The land in suit lies within the taluk and not within the howla . In 1891 Ghafar Ali mortgaged certain land to defendant No. 1, describing it as included within the boundaries assigned in the plaint to the land in suit and also as being his mcdofat howla lying within the whole 16 annas of the estate. In due course the defendant No. 1 sued upon his mortgage, obtained a decree, sold the land in execution and purchased it himself. Three years later Ghafar Ali sold this land as being included in his taluk to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the Mnusif. On appeal the learned District Judge held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mati Lal Raha Vs. Indra Nath Bannerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal907
Fletcher, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the defendants for libel.2. It appears that the defendant, Indra Nath Bannerjee, is the owner of a colliery in the mouza Jote Janki. In close proximity to his colliery are situated two other collieries, one belonging to the Singaran Colliery Co. and the other to P.K. Chatterjee, the latter of which is or was until recently called the New Toposi Colliery. In or about the year 1902 the defendant Indra Nath opened up this colliery, and his coal was sold in the market as 'Jote Janki' coal. From the evidence given on behalf of the defendant, which I accept, it appears that the seam worked by Indra Nath was a superior coal to that worked by the Singaran Co. and P.K. Chatterjee. The coal produced from all three pits is, however, coal that is known in the market as 'second class coal.' There can be little doubt, but that the coal from Indra Nath's pit had become known in the Calcutta market amongst people who deal in this ...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal Raha and anr. Vs. Indra Nath Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.831
Fletcher, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the defendants for libel.2. It appears that the defendant, Indra Nath Banerjee, is the owner of a colliery in the Mouzah Jote Janki. In close proximity to his colliery are situate two other collieries, one belonging to Singaram Colliery Co., and the other to P. K. Chatterjee, the latter of which is or was, until recently, called The New Topsi Colliery. In or about the year 1902, the defendant Indra Nath opened up his colliery and his coal was sold in the market as Jote Janki ' coal. From the evidence given on behalf of the defendant, which I accept, it appears that the steam worked by Indra Nath was a superior coal to that worked by the Singaram Co. and P. K. Chatterjee. The coal produced from all the three pits is, however, coal that is known in the market as Second Class Coal.' There can be little doubt but that the coal from Indra Nath's pit had become known in the Calcutta market amongst people who deal in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Dasarath Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal869,4Ind.Cas.352
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioners should not be set aside on three grounds: first, that the Joint Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the appeal, inasmuch as he had taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioners; secondly, that the offence for which the petitioners were tried was one within Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas they have been convicted under Sections 428 and 352, which is also contrary to the provisions of Section 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and, thirdly, that there is no finding as to the necessary intent under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Cause has been shown by the learned Junior Government Pleader.2. It appears that the complainant charged the petitioners with certain offences. On the 15th December 1908, Babu Durga Prosad, a Deputy Magistrate, who received the complaint and examined the complainant, recorded an order: 'S...
Tag this Judgment!Shah MosihuddIn Vs. Sheo Logan Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.265
1. The facts of the suit in which the present appeal has been made are as follows. Defendant No. 10, the present appellant, sued defendants Nos. 1-9 who constitute a joint family under the Mitakshara School of law for rent. He obtained a decree which was confirmed on appeal, and attached the house the subject-matter of this suit. Before attachment, however, a second appeal had been filed, and on the 19th August 1899 by an order of this Court execution was stayed on security being given. On the 23rd of November, 1899 defendants Nos. 1-3, as managers for their family mortgaged the attached property to defendant No. 11 by whom the bond has since been transferred to the plaintiff, on terms that the principal debt should be repaid in two years and that interest due should be recoverable separately. On the 21st May 1900 the second appeal in the rent suit was dismissed, and a fresh attachment was made in September of the same year. The property was sold under the attachment in August 1902 and...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendra Chandra Burma Vs. Bindubashini and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.5
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Tipperah, dated the 6th January 1908. It Appears that on the 6th September, 1906, the date fixed for the hearing of the suit before the Subordinate Judge the plaintiff appeared and stated that a compromise had been agreed upon with the defendants. On the defendants' denial that any compromise had been made the plaintiff asked the Court to take evidence that the defendants had really compromised the case. The lower Court was of opinion that Section 375 of the Code did not justify this procedure. The plaintiffs being under the impression that the case would be compromised had not brought their witnesses, and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs to the District Judge that learned officer remanded the suit to the first Court that it might proceed to take evidence as to whether the compromise was really made or not between the parties; and if so made, to give effect to it having reg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »