Kolkata Court February 1912 Judgments
In Re: Nisith C. Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal751
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. Mr. Nisith Chandra Sen, a candidate for election as a Commissioner for Ward 22 at the coming Calcutta Municipal election, obtained a rule calling on the Chairman of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why he should not prepare and publish the revised list of voters for Ward 22 under Rule 10 of Schedule IV of the Calcutta Municipal Act ber rejecting the application filed by Babu Priya Nath Mullick, a candidate for election as a Commissioner for Ward No. 22, on the 1st January 1912.2. It was ordered that a copy of the order be served on Babu Priya Nath Mullick, but no rule was in express terms issued against him.3. The application made by Babu Priya Nath Mullick was 'that his name be entered in the list as the person qualified to vote on behalf of a large number of companies, firms and Hindu families.4. The rule was heard by Mr. Justice' Fletcher, who made it absolute with costs.5. From this order Babu Priya Nath Mullick alone has appealed. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Tewari Vs. Chandpur Company Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal766
Cecil Brett, J.1. The value of the property in the suit in respect of which this application is made for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council is Rs. 21,206-10. The decisions of the two Courts are however concurrent, and it will therefore be necessary for the applicant to satisfy us that his appeal raises a substantial question of law.2. The question, however, which we have to determine first is whether the application has been made within the time limited by the law, or whether it is barred by limitation.3. The judgment of this Court, against which the applicant seeks to appeal, was delivered on the 7th July 1911, and the application was made on the 30th January 1912, that is to say after an interval of six months and 23 days. The period fixed by Article 179, Schedule I of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), within which such an application should be made, is six months from the date of the decree appealed against, and, unless the applicant is able to make out a case, to avoid the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Charnock Collieries Co. Ld. Vs. Bholanath Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal810
Fletcher, J.1. This is a special case for the opinion of the Court under Order XXXVI of Schedule I of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs are the Charnock Collieries Co., Ld., in liquidation and Edward William Viney and John Woodhouse Thurston, the liquidators of the company; the defendant is Bholanath Dhar.2. The matters in which the opinion of the Court is sought are under two headings. First, the defendant claims as a secured creditor in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,417-8 which is said to be due to him under a certain instrument of hypothecation dated the 3rd January 1910 expressed to have been made between the company of the one part and the defendant of the other part.3. The second part of the claim is with reference to the right of the defendant to be a secured creditor in respect of certain royalties and rents due by the plaintiff company to the defendant under the authority of a kabuliat under which the plaintiff held the colliery.4. This colliery was, by an agreement made be...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Kristo Daw and Co. Vs. Satish Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal822,18Ind.Cas.69
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. In my opinion, no appeal lies in this case. It has to be seen first what is that from which the present appeal is preferred. It is from the judgment pronounced and the decree made on the 13th day of March 1911. Now, what was the decree made on that day? It is a decree whereby it was declared that the award therein mentioned ought to be carried into effect and the same was ordered and decreed accordingly. The judgment was the judgment on which that decree followed.2. Then how did the judgment and decree come to be pronounced and passed? It was in compliance with Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule provides that '(1) Where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration in manner aforesaid, and no application has been made to set aside the award, or the Court has refused such application, the Court shall, after the time for making such application has exp...
Tag this Judgment!Halodhar Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Kumar Ramendra NaraIn Roy Chowdhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.90
1. The plaintiffs-respondents in this appeal are the purchasers of estate No. 230 on the roll of the Collectorate at Dacca at a sale for arrears of Government revenue and, by virtue of that purchase, they claim to be entitled to recover khas possession of certain lands which are admittedly in the possession of the defendants-appellants. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the defendants, apparently under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, claiming to be entitled to recover possession of the lands in the estate which they had purchased as it was at the time of the original settlement and free from all encumbrances which had subsequently been imposed upon it. The defendants claimed to be in possession of the lands in suit under a lakhiraj title and they alleged that the plaintiffs had no right to eject them from the lands or to recover khas possession. The lakhiraj title which the defendants set up dated from before the permanent Settlement. The defence, therefore, was that the...
Tag this Judgment!Charnock Collieris Co. Ltd. Vs. Bholanath Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.976
Fletcher, J.1. This is a special case for the opinion of the Court under Order XXXVI of Schedule I of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs are the Charnock Collieries Co., Ltd., in liquidation and Edward William Viney and John Woodhouse Thurston, the liquidators of the Company; the defendant is Bholanath Dhar.2. The matters in which the opinion of the Court is sought are under two headings. First, the defendant claims as a secured creditor in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,417-8, which is said to be due to him under a certain instrument of hypothecation, dated the 3rd January 1910, expressed to have been made between the Company of the one part and the defendant of the other part.3. The second part of the claim is with reference to the right of the defendant to be a secured creditor in respect of certain royalties and rents due by the plaintiff Company to the defendant under the authority of a kabulat under which the plaintiff held the colliery.4. This Colliery was, by an agreement made...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Tewari Vs. the Chandpur Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.59
Brett, J.1. The value of the property in the suit in respect of which this application is made for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council is Rs. 21,206-10. The decisions of the two Courts are, however, concurrent and it will, therefore, be necessary for the application to satisfy us that his appeal raises a substantial question of law.2. The question, however, which we have to determine first is whether the application has been made within the time limited by the law or whether it is barred by limitation.3. The judgment, of this Court against which the applicant seeks to appeal, was delivered on the 7th July 1911, and the application was made on the 30th January 1912, that is to say, after an interval of six months and 23 days. The period fixed by Article 179, Schedule I of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), within which such an application should be made, is six months from the date of the decree appealed against, and, unless the applicant is able to make out a case to avoid the bar ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mr. Nisith Chandra Sen.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.441
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. Mr. Nisith Chunder Sen, a candidate for election as a Commissioner for Ward No. 22 at the coming Calcutta Municipal election, obtained a Rule calling1 on the Chairman of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why he should not prepare and publish the revised list of voters for Ward No. 22 under Rule 10 of Schedule IV of the Calcutta Municipal Act by rejecting the application filed by Babu Priya Nath Mullick, a candidate for election as a Commissioner for Ward No. 22 on the 1st January 1912.2. It was ordered that a copy of the order be served on Babu Priya Nath Mullick, but no Rule was in express terms issued against him.3. The application made by Baba Priya Nath Mullick was that his name be entered in the list as the person qualified to vote on behalf of a large number of companies, firms, and Hindu families.4. The Rule was heard by Mr. Justice Fletcher, who made it absolute with costs.5. From this order, Babu Priya Nath Mullick alone has appealed. The Chair...
Tag this Judgment!Lodna Colliery Co. Ld. Vs. BipIn Bihari Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal739,17Ind.Cas.500
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff company against the defendant, Bipiu Bihari Bose, to recover first of all the sum of Rs. 90,902-8, or for an enquiry as to the amount of the plaintiff company's coal raised by the defendant and sold to the plaintiff company and the moneys so realized by the defendant with such proper deduction as the Court may direct; and, secondly, for discovery from the defendant of the quantity of the plaintiff company's coal so raised or disposed of; thirdly, for interest by way of further damages; fourthly, for Rs. 1,21,012-6 as damages for breach of contract and injury to the plaintiff company's colliery; and, fifthly, unless the defendant should undertake to protect and secure the plaintiff company's workings by masonry buttresses to be erected to the satisfaction of the plain till' company's servants and surveyors, for a further sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages.2. Now, in the first paragraph of the plaint it is set out. that the plaintiff compan...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonda Singh and ors. Vs. Dowlat Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.93
1. In the present appeal, the only point which has been raised on behalf of the appellants is whether a suit lies in the Civil Court for the purpose of amending a judgment and decree previously passed in a suit between the same parties by another Civil Court, on the ground that a mistake had been made by the Judge of the previous Court in his judgment and decree. The facts of the original suit, which in this case it is said was incorrectly decided, are that the present defendants brought a suit against the plaintiffs to recover the rent of their holding for a certain number of years. The defendants in that suit, (who are the plaintiffs in the present suit), raised objections on the grounds that the area stated in the plaint was wrongly given and that the rate of rent claimed was incorrect. They further pleaded payment. While that suit was in progress, a survey and settlement of rights was held in the Mauzah and the result of that was that a regular civil suit was instituted between the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »