Kolkata Court March 1910 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.
Hazi Mohamad Akbar and anr. Vs. Rai Dwarka Nath Sarkar Bahadur and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.63
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit to wind up a partnership. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of a deceased partner one Rohim Bux. The partnership was formed on the 4th November 1903, and the parties to the contract were Dwarka Nath Sircar, Shib Das Banerjee, Gagan Chandra Biswas, Rohim Bux, and Jugal Kishore Dobey; of these Rohim Bux and Dobey appear to have previously carried on business as contractors under the name of 'R. D and Co.', while Sircar and Biswas had carried on business as Engineers and contractors, under the name of Sircar, Biswas and Co.' When the five persons entered into partnership, they agreed to call it by the name of 'The United Firm of 'Sircar Biswas and Co.' In the instrument of partnership executed on the 4th November 1903, the shares of the different partners were specified, and there were various detailed provisions as to the advance of capital and the management of the business they proposed to undertake, namely, the cons...
Mahadeo Saran Sahu and anr. Vs. Thakur Prosad Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.40
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for adjudication of title by auction-purchase and recovery of possession of a share of 2 annas 8 pies in Revenue-paying Estate known as Khaira Pahari in the Oollectorate of Mozaffarpur. It appears that a separate account had been opened in. the Oollectorate in respect of this share. The plaintiff alleges that one Babu Lal Sahu, who is the father and ancestor of the defendants 3rd party, borrowed Rs. 2,300 odd from the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and executed a mortgage bond on 3 houses situated in the district of Chupra on the 7th Jane 1889. The plaintiff obtained a mortgage-decree on the 10th September 1895.2. In execution, the whole of the mortgaged property was sold for about Rs. 775 and for the balanse plaintiff obtained a personal decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. This decree was transferred for execution to the Mozaffarpur Court where the plaintiff obtained the attachment of the property in dispute on ...
Lubra Das Vs. Madhab Parhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.75
Chatterjee, J.1. There can be no doubt upon the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court that the mortgage, under which the defendant claims, was consented to by Padma Nabh who was the lessee of the village at the time of the consent. It is provided by Section 43, Clause 2, of the Act IX of 1883, that any alienation by way of mortgage by an occupancy tenant without the consent of his landlord shall be void against his landlord : a landlord has been defined in Section 3 Clause 3 as meaning the person of whom a tenant holds land, to whom the tenant is or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent for that land. Padma Nabh did certainly fill this character at the time and the mortgage was binding upon Padma Nabh but Padma Nabh has been evicted on the expiry of his lease and the plaintiff who is the present lessee wants to evict the defendant. On general principles, the consent of Padma Nabh who was a temporary lessee only should not bind any person who does not claim t...
Guiram Ghoshal and anr. Vs. Lal Behary Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.182
1. This case arises under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. There is a dispute between the parties, one of whom claims as against the other an hereditary right to perform the duties of pujari of an idol in a certain temple. The other party makes the case that he is merely the servant. On the matter coming before the Magistrate, he held that he had no jurisdiction under section, 147, Criminal Procedure Code, to deal with this dispute on the ground that the rights set forth by the petitioners, did not amount to an easement over any land.2. On this we have granted a Rule to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the case. On considering the matter and hearing the arguments of the learned pleaders, we are of opinion that the Magistrate was right Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, as has been pointed out, is not in terms confined to easements but relates to any dispute concerning the right of use of land or wat...
Sakari Datta Vs. Sheikh Ainuddy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.336
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of the Court below, by which a suit for mesne profits has- been dismissed as not maintainable under the law. On the 18th February 1900, the plaintiff mortgaged the property to the defendants. In January 1905, he brought a suit for redemption. The usual decree for redemption was made by the Court of first instance on the 15th September 1905. On appeal this decree was modified, on the 19th July 1905, and the mortgagor was directed to deposit the amount determined to be due on or before the 19th September following. The allegation of the plaintiff is that although the judgment-debt was duly deposited, the mortgagee did not deliver possession of the property to him, and that it was not till the 3rd October 1907, that he was able to obtain possession through the assistance of the Court. On the . 21st December 1907, he commenced the present action for recovery of mesne profits which had accrued due on account of the wrongful possession of ...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Peary Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.452
1. We are invited in this Rule to modify an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdab, passed in an appeal preferred to him under Section 162 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899. The appeal related to the question of valuation of certain premises in this city. The Corporation had valued the land at Rs. 7,694. This valuation was based on the rate of Rs. 400 for an area of 14 cottahs of solid land and the rate of Rs. 300 for an area of 6 cottahs and 5 chataks treated as tank filled-up land. Upon appeal, the Small Cause Court Judge came to the conclusion that 5 cottahs ought to be treated as solid land and that area ought to be valued at the rate of Rs. 400, the remainder in his opinion comprising an area of 15 cottahs 5 chataks ought to be valued at the rate of Rs. 225. It was quite competent to the Small Cause Court Judge to vary the valuation as he did. But he proceeded to hold--and this is the portion of his judgment to which exception is taken--that it was but reasonable that...
Shamsundar Saha Vs. Anath Bandhu Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal574
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. In this case a rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif at Tangail, first Court, dated the 20th November 1909, should not be set aside, or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court might seem fit and proper. The occasion of this rule was that a decree was passed in this Presidency Small Cause Court in March 1909 for a sum in excess of a thousand rupees. There was an application for transfer of the execution proceedings, which resulted in their being transferred to the Munsif at Tangail, first Court. Certain orders were passed by that Munsif, and on the 20th of November he made an order of release, and it is this order that is named in the rule. Subsequently, an exception being taken to the proceedings, the Munsif, on the 8th of January, made an order to the effect that the proceedings before him were without jurisdiction. Though the rule only mentions the order of the 20th of November 1909, I notic...
Shamsunder Saha and ors. Vs. Anath Bandhu Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.97
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. In this case a Rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif at Tangail, First Court, dated the 20th November 1909, should not be set aside or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court might seem fit and proper. The occasion of this rule was that a decree was passed in this Presidency Small Cause Court in March 1909 for a sum in excess of a thousand rupees. There was an application for transfer of the execution proceedings which resulted in their being transferred to the Munsif at Tangail, First Court. Certain orders were passed by that Munsif, and on the 20th of November, he made an order of release, and it is this order that is named in the Rule. Subsequently an exception being taken to the proceedings, the Munsif, on the 8th of January, made an order to the effect that the proceedings before him were without jurisdiction. Though the Rule only mentions the order of the 20th of November 1909, I notice tha...
Gangadhar Marwari and ors. Vs. Lachman Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.125
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was insufficient and that the appellant ought to have paid ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the mesne profits which were claimed by the opposite party. The objection appears to us to be based on a misunderstanding; for, it appears that, in the present case, the application for mesne profits was not made by the plaintiffs in the original suit but was made by the defendants against whom the suit had been dismissed by way of restitution under Section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application would, therefore, appear to be one falling under the provisions of Section 244, Clause (e), of the Code of Civil Procedure and under the Notification of the Government of India No. 4650, dated the 10th September 1889, the fee chargeable on an appeal from such an order will be limited to the amount chargeable under Article 11 of the second schedule of ...
Sayera Bibi Vs. Bhutnath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.455
1. This is an application for review of our judgment delivered in an appeal from appellate decree on the 17th December 1909. The application was presented on the ninetieth day, but Court-fees were paid to the extent of half the amount leviable on the memorandum of appeal. The question, therefore, requires consideration whether the application is sufficiently stamped. The answer depends upon the construction of Articles 4 and 5 of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act of 1870. Article 4 provides that an application for review of judgment, if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, must be stamped with the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal. Article 5 provides that an application for review of judgment, if presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, must be stamped with one-half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal. The learned Vakil for the petitioner argues that as the eighty-ninth day was a Sunday and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »