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.
Hari Mohan Dey Sarkar Vs. Ram NaraIn Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.28
1. The plaintiff was the mortgagee of a certain occupancy-holding. Having obtained a decree upon his mortgage, he took a hukumnamah from the defendant No. 6, who was the 14-anna landlord. After purchasing the property at the sale in execution of the mortgage-decree, he settled the amount of nazarana and paid a part of it to the defendant No. 6, the rest was to be paid after the sale had been held and confirmed. He made the purchase and, after having taken the settlement from the other co-sharers of the defendant No. 6, went to the defendant No. 6 to have the settlement from him on payment of the balance of the nazurani. He was, however, told that the land had already been leased out to the appellants. He, however, brought this suit, on a statement of these facts for recovery of the land, on the ground that the consent of the landlord to his purchase had given him a complete title and he could not be ousted by the landlord by any subsequent action of his.2. Both the lower Courts decreed...
The Bombay Company Ld. Vs. the National Jute Mills Company Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.153
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 wer...
Waresh Munshi Vs. Aftabuddi Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.975
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of Appeal below, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has set aside an execution sale. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that it is barred under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That section provides that no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred rupees. In the case before us, the decree under execution was made in a suit of which the value was less than Rs. 500. Consequently, if Section 102 is applicable, the second appeal is incompetent. The learned Vakil for the appellant decree-holder has, however, contended, upon the authority of the decision of this Court in the cases of Chand Monee Dasya v. Santo Monee Dasya 24 C. 707 : 1 C.W.N. 534; Nemai Chand Kanji v. Deno Nath Kanji 2 C.W.N. 6...
M.S. Angulia and Co. Vs. E.D. Sassoon and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.705
Lawrence Jenkins, 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, Exihibit A to the plaint.2. This document is dated the 28th Febuary, 1910, and is signed by M.C. Misry on behalf of the defendants' firm.3. By it the defendants' firm purports to buy from the plaintiffs 750 tons of white cane Java sugar, the shipments to be made during August, September, October, November, December equally. The price was Rs. 7-14-9 per bazar maund ex-jetty or docks. Delivery was to betaken by the buyer ex jetty or dock within 3 days and it was expressly provided as follows:The goods to be at the buyer's 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 bu...
KalimuddIn Vs. Meharui
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal563
Coxe and Imam, JJ.1. The appellant in this case was granted letters of administration to the estate of one Moulabux, and executed a bond in favour of the District Judge under Section 78 of the Probate and Administration Act. 1881, for the due administration of the estate. As apparently lie did not administer it properly, the bond was assigned under Section 79 of the Act to Gyasuddin, a son of Moulabux. Gyasuddin, however, came to terms with the appellant and did not sue on the bond. The widow and the other children of Moulabux then sought to have the bond assigned to them. This has been granted by the District Judge, and hence this appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. We think this contention must prevail. Section 86 of the Act enacts that every order of a District Judge under the Act shall be subject to appeal to the High Court under the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals. One of those rules is to be found in Section 105 of...
Radha Kanta Chakravarti Vs. Ramananda Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal513
D. Chatterjee, J.1. An occupancy holding, which has been found to be not transferable without the consent of the landlord, was mortgaged to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, who is the heir of the mortgagor, sold a part of this holding to defendant No. 6 with the consent of the landlord, who subsequently gave a fresh lease to defendant No. 6 at an enhanced rent. On a suit being brought on the mortgage, the defendant No.6 pleaded that the mortgage was void, as the holding mortgaged was not transferable without the consent of the landlord, and no such consent had been obtained.There being a difference of opinion as to whether defendant No. 6 was estopped from pleading the non-transferability of the holding the question has been referred to me under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code. I shall in this Judgment call defendant No. 1 the mortgagor, and the defendant No. 6 the appellant.2. It is contended by the learned vakil for the Appellant that there can be no estoppel against a statue, ...
Narendra Mohan Ghose Chowdhury Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.431
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Backergunge to show cause why the order under Section 109 (b), Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside on the ground that that clause has no application to this case and that other matters, irrelevant to such a charge, have been introduced. We had occasion to set out at some length our views on the law under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, only the other day in the case of Emperor T. Satish Chandra Sarkar 13 Ind. Cas. 913 : 16 C.W.N. 499 : 15 C.L.J. 396 : 13 Cr. L.J. 161, and we do not propose to go over the same ground again. It i3 sufficient to say that this case is clearly distinguishable from that, inasmuch as in this case the accused was found not in his own father's house as in that case but in an-1 other district in the house of a man who was suspected, on grounds which appear in evidence, of being a dangerous political conspirator, and to have collected a large amount of seditious literature which was the...
Sheikh KalimuddIn Vs. Musammat Mahurni and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.690
1. The appellant in this case was granted Letters of Administration to the estate of one Mania Baksh and executed a bond in favour of the District Judge under Section 78 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, for the due administration of the estate. As apparently he did not administer it properly, the bond was assigned under Section 79 of the Act to Gyasuddin, a son of Maula Baksh. Gyasuddin, however, came to terms with the appellant and did not sue on the bond. The widow and the other children of Maula Baksh then sought to have the bond assigned to them. This has been granted by the District Judge and hence this appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. We think this contention must prevail. Section 86 of the Act enacts that every order of a District Judge under the Act shall be subject to appeal to the High Court under the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals. One of those rules is to be found in Section 105 of the Code whi...
Radha Kant Chakravarti Vs. Ramananda Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.698
D. Chatterjee, J.1. An occupancy-holding, which has been found to be not transferable without the consent of the landlord, was mortgaged to the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1, who is the heir of the mortgagor, sold, a part of this holding to defendant No. 1 with the consent of the landlord, who subsequently gave a fresh lease to defendant No. 6 at an enhanced rent. On a suit being brought on the mortgage, the defendant No. 6 pleaded that the mortgage was void as the holding mortgaged was not transferable without the consent of the landlord and no such consent had been obtained. There being a difference of opinion as to whether defendant No. 6 was estopped from pleading the non-transferability of the holding, the question has been referred to me under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code, I shall in this judgment call defendant No. 1 the mortgagor and the defendant No. 6 the appellant.2. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the appellant that there can be no estoppel against a statut...
Sew Karan Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal682,14Ind.Cas.205
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. These were two Rules calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta and the Chairman to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon Sew Karan, proprietor, should not be set aside on the ground that he did not sell, or cannot be said to have sold, the ghee himself, and to determine whether Section 495 of the Calcutta Municipal Act applies to any person other than the actual hand employed in the sale.2. Now, as regards the first question, we can have no doubt, on the authority of Brown v. Foot (1892) 17 Cox. C.C. 509 that on the law, which in England is exactly the same as in this country, indeed, Section 495 appears to have been based entirely on Section 6 of the English Act, it has been held that a servant, employed by his master to sell any article, who adulterates it, thereby renders his master liable under the section, although there is no connivance of the master; and non-connivance of the master is no defence, though the entire absence ...