Kolkata Court July 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.
Ganga Prasad Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Hara Kanta Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.234
Sharf-ud-din, J.1. These are two appeals against certain orders passed by the District Judge of Pabna and Bogra in a proceeding under Act VIII of 1890 (the Guardians and Wards Act).2. The facts of the case are these:--One Brojo Mohan died, leaving a widow named Bidhu Mukhi Debya, a son named Biseshwar Mohan Roy, and two daughters. On the death of the son, the widow, under permission given to her by her deceased husband, adopted a boy, named Monoranjan Chowdhry, the natural son of one Hara Kant a Chowdhry. The adoptive mother is also dead and now the dispute is between Hara Kanta Chowdhry, the natural father of the minor, on the one hand, and the two daughters of Brojo Mohan Roy and the 3 brothers of the widow on the other, as regards the guardianship of the person of the minor.3. The natural father, Hara Kanta Chowdhry, was the first to apply, under Act VIII of 1890 ; upon which the two daughters of the late Brojo Mohan Roy and his widow's brothers objected. There were thus five object...
Shashi Bhushan Seal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal106
Harington and Tuenon, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the prosecution in this petition complained of should not be stayed, on the ground that the genuineness of the document, which is the subject of the prosecution, is a question at issue in a civil suit, and, therefore, criminal proceedings ought not to be taken in respect of it until the determination of this civil suit.2. What has happened is this. The prosecutor in the criminal case sued the defendant on a promissory note. In the course of the proceeding an affidavit was filed by the defendant, which disclosed a letter on which the defendant relied as showing that there was special arrangement with regard to the promissory note which would be an answer to the suit brought against him on that note by the prosecutor. The prosecutor says that the letter is a forgery. He at once took proceedings against the defendant in the Criminal Court for forgery. On the hearing of this Rule, he s...
Basanta Kumari Debi Vs. Kali Tara Dassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.327
Sharf-ud-din, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1, and it arises out of a suit, instituted by the purchasers at a sale for arrears of Government revenue, to recover khas possession of some lands lying within the ambit of the estate purchased by the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit: and her defence was that the disputed land was a portion of her homestead, on which there are a tank and some fruit trees and also that she had an occupancy right over the land. She, therefore, claimed protection, under exception 4 to Section 37 of Act XI of 1859 and the proviso to that section.2. The first Court found that the defendant No. 1 had no occupancy right, but that she held a protected interest, under exception 4 to Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, and it, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' title to receive rent from the defendant No. 1, but rejected the prayer for ejectment.3. The plaintiffs appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who decreed the appeal and allowed Khas posses...
Sasi Bhusan Seal Vs. Manik Lal Nundy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.317
1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the prosecution in this petition complained of should not be stayed on the ground that the genuineness of the document which is the subject of the prosecution is a question at issue in a Civil suit, and, therefore, Criminal proceedings ought not to be taken in respect of it until the determination of the Civil suit.2. What has happened is this. The prosecutor in the Criminal case sued the defendant on a promissory-note. In the course of the proceedings, an affidavit was filed by the defendant which disclosed a letter on which the defendant relied as showing that there was a special arrangement with regard to the promissory-note which would be an answer to the suit brought against him on that note by the prosecutor. The prosecutor says that the letter is a forgery. He at once took proceedings against the defendant in the Criminal Court for forgery.3. On the hearing of this Rule he strongly resisted the appl...
Manindro Nath Mitter Vs. Bengal Nagpur Railway Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1910
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.665
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon, the petitioner should not be set aside, on the ground that the facts found did not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 112 of the Railways Act (Act IX of 1890).2. Section 112 of the Act makes it an offence in any person to enter a railway carriage in contravention of Section 68 of the Act with intent to defraud a Railway administration and Section (58 provides that no person shall, without the permission of a Railway servant, enter any carriage on a Railway for the purpose of travelling therein as a passenger unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket.3. In the present case the petitioner was travelling on the 3rd May by a railway train, and when called upon to produce his ticket by a ticket checker he produced a ticket dated the 2nd of May. Now, it appears that though the ticket contained nothing on the face of it to show that this was the case, yet t...
Brahmamoyee Chaudhurani and ors. Vs. Gopi Mohan Rai Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.124
Sharf-ud-din, J.1. These are two appeals arising out of the same judgment.2. The plaintiff No. 1 and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are co-sharers and ijmali maliks of a certain bazar called Bhola Chong Bazar. The other plaintiffs are the lessees from the plaintiff No. 1. The western portion of this bazar is known by the name of Chandina Bazar and in this latter there are tin sheds belonging to the shopkeepers. The plaintiff No. 1 and the defendants also have godowns in this western portion. The eastern portion is said to be an open space, where, it is alleged, temporary stalls are put up and boats are moved during the rainy season. In the east of this open space is a khal running north and south. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have taken earth from the western slope of this khal and that they have raised certain spaces to the east of their permanent shops; and hence the plaintiffs claimed an injunction on the defendants and prayed for an order directing the defendants to resto...
Jugal Pershad Singh Vs. Parbhu NaraIn Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal914
Chatterjee and Richardson, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in the suit sued the defendants upon a mortgage bond, dated the 15th March 1898, executed in favour of the plaintiff by Babu Janki Pershad Singh, deceased, in his own name and the name of his son, the defendant No. 1, who was at the time a minor. Afterwards two other sons were born to Janki Pershad, who are the minor defendants, Nos. 2 and 3, represented in this litigation by their mother as guardian ad litem. The family of the defendants is governed by the Mithila law, which, for the present purpose, is the same as the law of the Mitakshara.2. The principal sum secured by the mortgage is Rs. 13,000, and in regard to the circumstances in which the bond was executed, there is now no controversy, the parties having accepted the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. The major portion of the money (Rs. 12,155-3-6) was borrowed by Janki Pershad for the payment of antecedent debts, and the remainder (Rs. 844-12-6) for his current expenses....
British and Foreign Marien Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Indian General Naviga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal28
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought against common carriers to recover Rs. 27,915 in respect of 1,000 bales of jute lost on the carriers' flat on the allegation that the loss or damage to the goods was caused by, or arose from the negligence or criminal acts of the carriers or their servants or agents, the plaintiffs being the owners of the goods and an Insurance Company, who have paid these owners under a policy on the goods the amount now claimed.2. The point in contest is whether as the carriers contend they are exempt from liability by the terms of a contract between the owners and the carriers and of the policy under which the goods were insured by the Insurance Company.3. On the 25th of February, 1908, the India General Navigation and Railway Co., Ld., (to whom I will hereafter refer E as the parrying Company) issued a bill of lading in respect of 1,000 bales of jute on their flat 'Lemro' then at Madaripur the jute was shipped by C.R. Chakravarti ...
British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co., Ld. Vs. Indian General Steam ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal50
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Harington, has held that there was no such notice as is required by the Act. In my opinion that view was correct, nor is it possible to contend on the materials that are on the record that there was waiver of that notice. We must, therefore, so far as the decree in this suit is concerned confirm it and dismiss this appeal with costs.Woodroffe J.2. I agree....
Lakshmi NaraIn Dutt Vs. Fazil Mahomed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.163
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 to recover possession of some plots of land. The plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are tl..e sons and the plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 are the daughters of one Nasir Mahomed. The defendant No. 1 purchased the property at a sale in execution of a decree passed on a mortgage executed in his favour by one Jabid Ali. It appears that the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were parties to the mortgage decree. The plaintiffs alleged that the property belonged to Nasir Mahomed, and that, as heirs of Nasir Mahomed, they are entitled to recover possession. The defendant No. 1 alleged that the property belonged to Jabid Ali, and that, as purchaser of the interest of Jabid Ali in the property, he is entitled to remain in possession, and that at any rate, the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are bound by the mortgage-decree and are not entitled to recover possession from him. These allegations raised two cardinal points, first, how far were the plaintiffs Nos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »