Kolkata Court June 1911 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.
Matigara Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Shragers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.429
Harington, J.1. This is an action brought on an equitable mortgage against Shrager.3, Limited,--Adel Shrager, Adolphe Shrager and Kirtinar; two other persons Prokash Chunder Dutt and Naresh Chunder Dey are made defendants as being interested in the mortgaged property. The money advanced on the mortgage was paid through Mr. F.M. Leslie, the Attorney, and the defendant other than the last two, subsequent to the advance and the deposit of deeds with Mr. Leslie, sent a memorandum placing on record the fact of the advance and that they deposited the title deeds of the Nudkhurki and Isabell Collieries together with the lease of the premises Nos. 10 to 15/1, Canning Street, by way of collateral security. The same parties, I should say, had executed promissory-notes in respect of the advances. Some seven or eight months after the deposit of the deeds in question, the Canning Street lease was withdrawn and there was deposited in place thereof a lease of Nos. 14, 14/1 and 14/4, Old China Bazar S...
Matigara Coal Co., Ld. Vs. Shragers, Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal824
Harington, J.1. This is an action brought on an equitable mortgage against Shragers, Limited, - Adel Shrager, Adolphe Shrager and Kirtikar; two other persons Prokash Chunder Dutt and Waresh Chunder Dey are made defendants as being interested in the mortgaged property. The money advanced on the mortgage was paid through Mr. F.M. Leslie, the attorney, and the defendants other than the last two, subsequent to the advance and the deposit of deeds with Mr. Leslie, sent a memorandum placing on record the fact of the advance and that they deposited the title deeds of the Nudkhurki and Isabell Collieries together with the lease of the premises No. 10 to 15/1, Canning Street, by way of collateral security. The same parties, I should say, had executed promissory notes in respect of the advances. Some seven or eight months after the deposit of the deeds in question, the Canning Street lease was withdrawn and there was deposited in place thereof a lease of Nos. 14, 14/1 and 14/4, Old China Bazar S...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Haji Kassim Ariff Bham
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal714
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The question of law referred for the opinion of this Court, under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is 'whether the accused is bound to move the High Court for taking steps for the carrying out of the requisitions of the notice under Section 408 of Bengal Act III of 1899, or whether the Corporation should have, with the leave of the High Court, served the notice under Section 408 upon the Receiver.'2. The estate of the accused Haji Kassim Ariff Bham is in the hands of a Receiver appointed by this Court. It is beyond dispute that some one must carry out the requisitions under the Act. It was held in Fink v. Corporation of Calcutta (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 721, that the Receiver is not the 'owner' of the premises he holds as Receiver, within the definition of the term as contained in the Municipal Act, and that he is not an agent or trustee in that behalf. It follows that the actual owner, Haji Kassim Ariff Bham, is the only person liable, as owner,...
Mozelle Joshua Vs. Sophie Arakie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal708
Harington, J.1. The plaintiff is the widow of a gentleman, A.R. Joshua, and she asks for a declaration that a sum of Rs. 10,555 constitutes the first charge on the estate of her deceased husband, and that sum is due to her in priority to the sums due to all the other, creditors. The estate is being administered under the direction of the Court and the liabilities exceed the assets. Now to make good her claim to this charge on the estate of her husband, the lady relies on a document which was executed at the time of her marriage. The document has been described as a ketubah, and it is alleged by the plaintiff that it has the effect of creating in her favour the charge which she asks to have declared on her husband's estate. She supports her claim further by a number of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion, who have come to say what effect this document has amongst their people. I have very great doubt as to whether the evidence they give is, strictly speaking, admissible.2. Now before dea...
Mcinerny Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal797
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before us by way of appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Fletcher who dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. On the case being placed before us it was perceived that apart from the difficulty that there might be in bringing a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a tort, alleged to have been committed by an agent of the Government, there was a further obstacle in the plaintiff's way that the facts as alleged in his plaint could not be supported by evidence, inasmuch as it had been discovered and was the case that the obstacle in respect of which the plaintiff claimed, was not, as the plaint alleged, on the land of the Crown, in other words, on a part of the maidan but on a part of the highway which was adjacent to the maidan. Therefore, leave was sought from us to amend the plaint so as to bring it into conformity with the facts which the plaintiff believed he could prove, and we required as a condition of this application th...
Mcinerny, J.F.H. Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.370
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before us by way of appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Fletcher who dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. On the case being placed before us it was perceived that, apart from the difficulty that there might be in bringing a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a tort, alleged to have been committed by an agent of the Government, there was a further obstacle in the plaintiff's way that the facts as alleged in his plaint could not be Supported by evidence, inasmuch as it had been discovered and was the case that the obstacle in respect of which the plaintiff claimed, was not, as the plaint alleged, on the land of the Crown ; in other words, on a part of the maidan but on a part of the highway which was adjacent to the maidan. Therefore, leave was sought from us to amend th8 plaint so as to bring it into conformity with the facts which the plaintiff believed he could prove, and we required as a condition of this application tha...
Manindra Nath Mandal and anr. Vs. Mohanunda Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.161
1. This is an appeal under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, against an order made under Clause 3 of the second Schedule of the Code. It appears that the parties to this proceeding made a submission to arbitration on the 2nd August 1907. The arbitrators gave their award on the 21st March 1908. On the 15th May following, the respondents before us applied to the Court under Clause 20 of the second Schedule of the Code to file the award. Objections were taken by the appellants, and were of all conceivable descriptions. The Subordinate Judge has considered these in detail and overruled every one of them. The defendants have now appealed to this Court, and on their behalf the decision of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed substantially on eight grounds; namely, first, that there was no valid submission to arbitration, because by the fraud of the respondents, the name of Babu Kuloda Prosad Mukerjee was inserted in the submission, whereas it had been agreed upon between...
Nalini Sundari Gupta and anr. Vs. Bejoy Kumar Roy Chowdhuty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1911
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.12
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by one Bejoy Kumar Roy Chowdhury for revocation of Probate of the Will of one Kashi Nath Gupta. Kashi Nath Gupta made his Will in August 1883 and died on the same day. He left a widow named Nalini Sundari Gupta, the appellant-opposite party in this case, a daughter, Sarat Sasi by another wife Niroda Sundari Gupta, and his mother Bama Sundari. Bama Sundari applied for Probate of her son's Will, but died before the order on her application was made. An order in this matter was passed on the 31st March 1884. The next proceedings were the two applications one by Prosonno Chandra Sen, the father of Nalini Sundari, and the other by Umesh Chandra Mojumdar, the brother of Niroda Sundari, for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. Both these applications were refused on the 2nd April 1834. The matter was then brought up to this Court, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no Letters of Administration could be granted, the esta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›