Kolkata Court February 1912 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.
In Re: Mr. Romesh Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.682
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule granted under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act calling upon Mr. S.L. Maddox, Chairman of the Calcutta Corporation, to show cause why he should not prepare and publish a revised list of voters for Ward No. 13 of the Municipal town of Calcutta under Schedule 10 of the Calcutta Municipal Act by rejecting' the claims, objections and applications filed by Mr. I.J. Cohen, Commissioner of the said Ward No. 13, on the 2nd day of January 1912, and by giving effect to the claims, objections and applications filed by Mr. Romesh. Chandra Sen as if the said claims, objections and applications filed by the said Mr. I.J. Cohen were not filed at all, and why he should not pay the costs of and incidental to this application.2. Now the rules for preparation and publication are contained in Schedule IV of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899. Rule 8 provides that every person, who claims to have his name inserted in the list as being qualified under any of the clauses of Se...
Ramdeo Pandey Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1912
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.648
1. We think that this Rule must be made absolute on the first ground on which it was issued, namely, that the proceedings are premature. The Police report upon which they are based mentions 17 cases in which the accused has been suspected to have taken part, and eight of those eases, or nearly half, we are surprised to find, took place during the period when he was previously furnishing security. Then there are four cases in which the Police reported that he has been known to have taken part. All four of these cases took place during his previous terms of security, and it is upon these 12 cases with 9 other cases, which occurred in April, May and June and August 1911, that he is now being arraigned, and the proceedings state that this report makes it appear to the Magistrate that this man is by habit a thief and house-breaker by night and that he habitually commits extortion and offences involving a broach of the peace. As far as we can see there is no hint of extortion or any offence ...
ichhamoyi Debi Vs. Nil Moni Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.169
S.A. No. 1556 of 1909.1. It is unnecessary for us to go into all the points raised in this appeal as it must necessarily fail on the point of limitation.2. The plaintiffs have never been in possession of this property and the only way in which they could succeed was by proving that one Monmohini who died in 1301 had a widow's estate in the property at the time of her death, the suit having been brought within 12 years from that date. It is found by the Courts below that she had. not a widow's estate in the property because in the year 1288, when the succession might have opened to her, she was incapable of child bearing and, therefore, under the Bengal School of law, was not entitled to succeed. The Subordinate Judge finds that in 1238 Monmohini was 63 or 64 years old. Her husband was still alive and it does not appear that she had been separated from him. Although she had had a son who had died, she had had no children for 43 years. From these facts, the Subordinate Judge inferred tha...
Khitish Chandra Acharjya Chowdhury Vs. Osmond Beeby
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal587
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one brought against Mr. Osmond Beeby, at one time the administrator pendente lite of the estate of one Dakhina Mohan Roy. The purpose of the suit is to recover from him five sums mentioned in the plaint with interest, on the ground that they have been wrongfully retained by him, and it is alleged that the retainer is wrongful inasmuch as it is, according to the plaintiffs, in excess of the remuneration to which he was entitled under the order appointing him administrator pendente lite.2. The facts on which the plaintiffs base their claim are set out clearly and minutely in the plaint. A written statement has been filed which puts in issue these facts and suggests a complexion of the case that would (it is contended) if established constitute an answer to this claim. Now, it so happens that the defendant, who was practising here as an advocate at the time that he was appointed administrator pendente lite, h...
Ranjit Lal Karmakar Vs. Bijoy Krishna Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal582
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the respondent before us, has brought this suit against the defendant to have it declared that the alleged adoption of the defendant is void and inoperative in law. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Stephen, who has pronounced a decree in the plaintiffs favour. From that decree the present appeal has been preferred.2. The points urged on behalf of the defendant are two--first, he says that the document of authority under which the adoption both of the plaintiff and himself purports to have been made is bad; and, secondly, that if it is good, then, his adoption, and not the plaintiff's, is valid, although made by the younger of the two widows of the deceased.3. The facts are briefly these: one Shib Krishna Karmakar, a Hindu governed by the Bengal school of Hindu Law, died on the 29th of November 1903, leaving two widows, Biraja Sundari Dassi and Shasbibala Dassi, and no son. The day before his death he executed this authorit...
Khitish Chnadra Acharya Chowdhury Vs. Osmond Beeby
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.4
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one brought against Mr. Osmond Beeby, at one time the administrator pendente lite of the estate of one Dakhina Mohan Roy. The purpose of the suit is to recover from him five sums mentioned in the plaint with interest, on the ground that they have been wrongfully retained by him and that the retainer is wrongful inasmuch as it is, according to the plaintiff, in excess of the remuneration to which he was entitled under the order ap-pointing him administrator pendente lite.2. The facts on which the plaintiffs base their claim are set out clearly and minutely in the plaint. A written statement has been filed which puts in issue these facts and suggests a complexion of the case that would, (it is contended), if established, constitute an answer to this claim. Now, it so happens that the defendant, who was practising here as an Advocate at the time that he was appointed administrator pendente lite, has since retired from In...
Ranjit Lal Karamakar Vs. Bejoy Krishna Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.17
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the respondent before us, has brought this suit against the defendant to have it declared that the alleged adoption of the defendant is void and inoperative in law. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Stephen who has pronounced a decree in the plaintiff's favour. From that decree the present appeal has been preferred.2. The points urged on behalf of the defendant are two; first, he says that the document of authority under which the adoption both of the plaintiff and himself purports to have been made is bad; and secondly, that if it is good, then his adoption and not the plaintiff's is valid although made by the younger of the two widows of the deceased.3. The facts are briefly these. One Shib Krishna Karmakar, a Hindu governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law, died on the 29th of November 1903, leaving two widows, Biraja Sundari Dasi and Sasibala Dasi, and no son. The day before his death, he executed this authority to adopt in favour...
Hira Lal Mitra Vs. Uday Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.33
1. The facts of the case in respect of which this Rule has been issued are as follows: Sheikh Parabaddi, the owner of certain properly, sold it on the 9th March 1893 to the defendant No. 2, who again sold it to the defendant No. 1 on the 10th November 1909. Defendant No. 3, the son of Sheikh Parabaddi, after Parabaddi's death, sold the same property to the plaintiff on the 9th November 1909. The plaintiff sued to recover the property from the defendant No. 1 on the ground that the sale to the defendant No. 2 by Sheikh Parabaddi was a benami transaction. The suit was instituted on the 18th October 1910, and, on the 9th December 1910, the plaint was amended on the prayer of the plaintiff. The issues were settled on the 20th January 1911 and adjournments were taken for various reasons by the plaintiff up to be 31st May 1911. There were adjournments after that date and, on the 14th August 1911, the plaintiff applied for the examination of his principal witness Chaddar Sheikh on commission....
Angullia and Co. Vs. Sassoon and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal568
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. This litigation has been occasioned by the alleged breach of a contract for the sale of sugar. The terms of the contract are set forth in the bought note.2. This document is dated the 28th of February 1910, and is signed by M.C. Misry on behalf of the defendant's firm.3. By it the defendant's firm purports to buy from the plaintiffs 750 tons of white cane Java sugar, the shipments to be made daring August, September, October, November, December equally. The price was Rs. 7-14-9 per bazar maund ex jetty or docks. Delivery was to be taken by the buyer ex jetty or dock within three days, and it was expressly provided as follows:The goods to be at the buyers' risk and peril from the time of landing of the sugar until they be removed from jetty, dock, ghat or godown, and should the buyers fail to take delivery of the sugar, the sellers will have the option of re-selling the same in the open market by private sale or by public auction and hold the buyers ...
The Bombay Company Ld. Vs. the National Jute Mills Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal669
Chitty, J.1. This is a petition by the Bombay Company, Limited, that an award made in their favour under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce relating to arbitrations may be filed in Court under Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899). The application is opposed by the National Jute Mills Company, Limited, who were the other party to the arbitration proceedings. There is no dispute as to the facts. By a contract, dated 1st December 1910, the Bombay Company agreed to buy from the National, Jute Mills Company 15,000 A twill bags of National Mills, standard make, in 50 bales of 300 pieces each. The goods were for export to South Africa. They were duly shipped and taken to Delagoa Bay. Some of the bales (the petitioners allege) were despatched to various places in South Africa, while other bales remained unsold at Delagoa Bay. It is said that all the bales were in bad condition, and, though externally perfect, the contents were rotten and unmerchantable. Seven bales we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »