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.
The British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. Vs. the India General Nav ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.364
Lawrence 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 February 1908, the Indian General Navigation and Railway Company Limited, (to whom I will hereafter refer as the Carrying 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 G.R. Chakrave...
British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. India General Steam ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.960
Lawrence 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....
Jagat Bai Vs. Babu Gajadhar Upadhya Nazir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.46
1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Bhagalpur removing the guardian owing to her mismanagement and getting involved in difficulties. The nazir has been appointed in her place for the property and has been directed to sell all properties of the minors and convert them into cash, which after paying off all debts, may be converted to G.P. Notes and the interest given as maintenance for the minors.2. With this extraordinary order, which is wholly without jurisdiction and ultra vires, we shall deal presently. Bat the first question to decide is whether a guardian can be removed on the materials before us. Under Order XXXII the loans which she was said to have taken without sanction were condoned, certain other loans were sanctioned and she was warned that she would be removed if she contracted any further unauthorized debts. Now there is nothing to show that between the passing of Order XXXII and the present Order she has transferred or disposed of any portion of th...
Sheo Lal Singh and ors. Vs. Chowdhry Goor NaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.218
1. One Ramdyal Singh died in 1845, leaving a widow Birja Koer, two daughters, Sham Sunder Koer and Moha Sunder Koer, two daughters' sons, Ajodhya, the son of Sham Sunder and Seo Charn, the won of Moha Sunder. Moha Sunder had also a daughter, Bhuwani Koer, whose son was Hanuman Sahai, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 9. It is said that Ramdyal Singh made a verbal Will by which he gave his properties to his two grandsons, Ajodhya and Seo Oharan, subject to a life-interest in favour of his widow Birja, giving the major portion to Ajodhya and the disputed properties amongst others to Seo Charan : that Seo Charan died during the life-time of Birja so that on Birja's death in 1851, Ajodhya got possession of the properties given to him and Moha Sander came into possession of the properties given to Seo Charan: that when Moha Sunder died on the 15th June 1894, the properties possessed by her devolved upon the heirs or nearest agnates of Seo Charan from whom Hanuman Sahai purchased them: Pla...
In Re: A Vakil's Application
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal853
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application by a gentleman, who is a vakil of this Court, claiming the right to file a warrant of attorney in respect of a suit which is pending in the Midnapore Court, in which a rule has been issued on behalf of the defendants, calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the suit should not be transferred to this Court in its Extraordinary Civil Jurisdiction. Now, it is undoubted that vakils have never appeared on the hearing of such an application for transfer I have made enquiries as to what the practice has been, and in no case have vakils appeared. I have myself been sitting three and a half years on the Original Side of this Court, and during that time I have transferred a certain number of cases to this Court, where I have thought that justice demanded that the trial should bake place in this Court rather than in the District Court, and in none of these cases have the parties been represented except by an advocate of this Court instructed by an attor...
Harendra Kumar Bose Vs. Girish Chandra Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal24
Harington and Teunon, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of in this petition should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate neglected to enforce the summons issued to compel attendance of the applicants' witnesses.2. The order which is complained of is one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the question which we have to decide is, first, whether in a proceeding under this section it is obligatory on the Magistrate to enforce the attendance of any witness at the instance of the parties; and secondly, if it is not so obligatory, whether his action in this particular case has resulted in such a denial of justice to the parties bound by the order us to make it incumbent on us to interfere under the special powers placed in our hands by the Charter.3. On the first point, the observation which we have to make is that, under the law, the Magistrate is the sole judge as to whe...
Jinnat Ali and ors. Vs. Nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.123
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain land. The plaintiff claims as the widow of one Ali Mahomed, who, it is said, obtained the property in suit under a hebanama and an arpanama executed in 1216 Maghi (corresponding to 1858) from one Dewan Ali.2. The defendants claimed as the heirs of Dewan Ali.3. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit in toto.4. The lower appellate Court has modified that decree and given the plaintiff a decree for all the lands in suit, save and except plots Nos. 1867 and 1933.5. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have appealed to this Court, and the plaintiff has filed cross-objections. On behalf of the defendants-appellants, two points have been urged. In the first place, it is contended that the finding of the Courts below as to the genuineness of the deed of gift and the arpanama is not sufficient to confer on the plaintiff's husband a valid title to the property and that the Courts below should have gone further and ...
Dhanpat Singh Kulari and ors. Vs. Johurmal Tusimal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.161
Sharf-ud-din, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued the defendants for the rent of some houses belonging to the Idol Jagannath Jiu. The last mohunt of the endowed property was a person named Mukunda Das. He died, but before his death he made a Will. By that Will he made the plaintiffs executors and appointed them trustees of the endowed properties. The plaintiffs, after the death of the mohunt, obtained probate of his Will and have since been managing the deb sheba of the idol ; and, as such managers, they have brought the present suit.2. The defendants denied the right of the plaintiffs to sue for rent, on the ground that the late mohunt, Mukunda Das, had no power to will away the properties belonging to the idol. 3. The Court of first instance decreed the suit.4. The decree of the Munsif was affirmed by the District Judge, after allowing an amendment of the plaint by substituting the names of the plaintiffs as de facto managers and per-sons interested in the endowment instead of execu...
Ramrup Das and ors. Vs. Mohunt Sujaram Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.92
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Bhagalpur, dated the 2nd May 1910, holding that the Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 was not sufficient and directing the plaintiff to value the suit and pay Court-fees upon valuation within 14 days, should not be set aside, on the ground that the order is erroneous in law on the authorities under the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On the hearing one objection raised against the Rule was that the Rule ought to have been also on the Senior Government pleader on behalf of Government as the revenue was affected. We acceded to this and have now heard the learned Senior Government Pleader at some length in support of the contention of the learned Vakil who showed cause against the Rule.3. The first objection that was taken to the Rule was that it was incompetent inasmuch as the learned Judge did not pass any final order deciding valuation, and if he eventually rejected the plaint there would be a right...
Maulvi Rafi-ud-dIn Vs. Syed Latif Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.94
1. This is an application of a somewhat novel character presented by one of the respondents in an appeal from an original decree. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for partition of joint properties. The preliminary decree was made in due course, and a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties by metes and bounds. After his report had been submitted and the order for final decree made, the Court below directed the plaintiff to file a non-judicial stamp of the value of Rs. 100 in order that the decree might be drawn up thereon in accordance with Article 45 of the first schedule to the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. By some mistake, the plaintiff filed a Court-fee stamp of that value. The error was not discovered by the officers of the Court and the decree was engrossed on the stamp paper filed. The error also escaped the attention of the learned Judge as also of the pleaders for the different parties, who signed the decree to indicate that it had been correctly drawn up. Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »