Kolkata Court April 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.
Kumar Sarat Chandra Singh Bahadur Vs. Sudhan Hari Mukerjea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.694
Brett, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff No. 1 on the 3rd March 1909, on his own behalf and as next friend on behalf of his two minor brothers, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff No. 1 attained majority in January 1909.2. The suit was for recovery of the sum of Rs. 9,162 4-3 said to be due to the plaintiffs for contract work of baling jute, done in the press of Kumar Satish Chandra Singh Bahadur, the father of the defendant. Kumar Satish Chandra Singh Bahadur died in January 1908, leaving the defendant as his sole surviving heir.3. The case for the plaintiffs was that their father, Bidhu Bhusan Mukerjee, used to do contract work of baling jute for Kumar Satish Chandra Singh at his Jute Press up to December 1896, when he died.4. After his death, Mohendra Nath Mukerjee, his friend, took his sons, the plaintiffs in this case, all of whom were then minors, to Kumar Satish Chandra and asked him to allow them to carry on the work of their father so th...
Ambika Charn Datta and Binoda Sundari Dasya Vs. Ramgati Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.718
Richardson, J.1. It appears that the husband of the defendant No. 1 in this suit mortgaged certain land to the plaintiff in May, 1902, and the following dates are of some importance in reference to the only question which arises for determination.2. In 1906 the plaintiff brought a suit on his mortgage and on the 6th April 1908, he obtained a preliminary decree under which he was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 900, 50 or in default of payment of that sum to bring the mortgaged property to sale.3. In 1906 the mortgagor's landlords brought a suit for the rent of the land and on the 27th June 1906, obtained a decree, for Rs. 116-4 6. In execution of that decree the land was sold, on the 23rd April 1908, for something under Rs. 900.4. On the 20th May 1908, the plaintiff deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 116-4-3 and had the sale in execution set aside under Section 310A of the old Civil Procedure Code.5. On the 26th August 1908, the defendant No. 1 sold the mortgaged property to the defe...
Nand Kishore Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Gulam Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.221
1. This is an application to review an order made by us under Order XLV of the Code of Civil Procedure. By that order, we rejected an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and we did so upon this ground. The learned Vakil for the applicant, one of the most experienced and eminent Vakils of this Court, immediately told us that though the value of the subject-matter on appeal to His Majesty in Council was upwards of Rs. 10,000, still the value of the subject-matter of the suit was not Rs. 10,000 and, consequently, he could not support the application. The result was, it was rejected.2. It is now sought to obtain a review of this order under Section 114 of the Code and Order XLVII. It is objected on the part of the respondent that no such application can be made and for the purposes of supporting that contention, our attention has been drawn to a number of decisions in which it has been held that no appeal lies under the Letters Patent from the orders of a single Judge...
Gopal Chandra Mukerji Vs. Notobar Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.53
1. The question of law raised in this Rule is whether it is competent to an execution Court to proceed with a claim application under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908 after the execution sale has actually taken place.2. The petitioner, in execution of a decree, dated the 4th April 1910, against one Kali Dasi Debi, attached certain properties. On the 23rd February 1911, the present opposite party preferred a claim but the claim was not adjudicated upon till the 21st August 1911. Meanwhile the property had been sold on the 25th April 1911 and purchased by the decree-holder. On behalf of the decree-holder auction-purchaser, it had been contended that after the sale had taken place, the Court was do longer competent to proceed with the application under Rule 58 and to make on the basis thereof an order under Rule 60. In oar opinion, this contention is manifestly well founded and must prevail.3. Rule 60 of Order XXI provides that where, upon the investigation contemplated in rules 5...
Upendra Chandra Singh Vs. Sakhi Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.709
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge, directing that an application for assessment of mesne profits be registered as an application for execution of a decree, notwithstanding the dismissal of a similar application previously made. It appears that the suit in which the plaintiff claimed to recover possession and mesne profits was decreed on the 28th March 1898. Possession was delivered in due course. An application subsequently made for assessment of the mesne profits as directed in the decree, was dismissed for default on the 25th January 1901. On the 13th April following, a fresh application was presented for assessment of mesne profits which was dismissed for default on the 9th May 1905. Upon appeal, the order of the primary Court was reversed by the District Judge on the 2nd January 1906. That order was confirmed on appeal to this Court on the 7th March 1907 Upendra Chandra v. Sakhi Chand 12 C.W.N. 3 : 7 C.L.J. 301. The result was that the pr...
Surnaman Singh and anr. Vs. Sham Charan Ohdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.689
1. The question of law raised in this appeal depends for its solution upon the true construction of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 178 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Sub-section (2) provides that in all cases of suits for the ejectment of a non-occupancy ryot for non-payment of arrears of rent or for the cancelment of a lease for non-payment of arrears of rent, the decree shall specify the amount of the arrears and if such amount together with interest and costs of the suit be paid into Court within thirty days from the date of the final decree, the decree shall not be executed. Sub-section (3) provides that the Deputy Commissioner may, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period of thirty days mentioned in Sub-section (2). The appellants, who were the plaintiffs landlords in the Court below, obtained a decree against the respondents on the 14th May 1909, which was drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 178. The tenants ...
Upendra Chandra Singh Vs. Sakhi Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.573
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Court of appeal below-made in affirmance of an order of the primary Court, directing an application for assessment of mesne profits to be registered as an execution case on the basis whereof inquiry into the amount of mesne profits is to proceed. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the application is in reality an application in the suit and the order made thereon cannot be treated as a decree under Section 2 read with Section 47 Clause (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. In reply to this contention, it has been urged by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the respondent has treated the application for assessment of mesne profits as an application in execution, that, at his instance, it has been registered as such, and consequently, it is not open to the respondent now to urge that the matter is not really one in execution. In support of this view, reliance has been pla...
Thakur Madan Mohan Nath Sahi Deo Vs. Bhikhar Shahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.719
1. This appeal 'is directed against an order which purports to have been made in proceedings in execution of a mort- gage-decree, bat which really amends the original decree. The mortgage-decree, made in favour of the present respondent on the 15th December 19C4 against three defendants, directed the sale of the mortgaged properties; the first defendant alone, however, was made liable for the costs of the suit. An application was made for execution of this decree on the 8th January 1909, and after the objection of the judgment-debtors had been overruled on the 21st January, execution was directed to proceed. Two of the judgment-debtors, the second and third, then appealed to this Court and they joined as parties respondents to their appeal the decree-holder and the first judgment-debtor. At the hearing of the appeal, the first judgment-debtor respondent was not represented; but by consent of the two judgment-debtors appellants and the decree-holder respondent, it was directed by this C...
Jabbar Shaik Vs. Tamiz Shaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal931
Holmood and Imam, JJ.1. This Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. We are surprised to find that the learned Sub-divisional Officer should so misapprehend the provision of the law under Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code. That section does not excuse the Magistrate from hearing the evidence of all witnesses. It excuses him from recording the evidence of any of the witnesses. But it is an elementary point that recording evidence is not the same as hearing evidence. In all criminal, cases if the accused denies the charge, the complainant and such witnesses as he may produce must be examined, and the case must be decided upon the effect of their evidence. The order of acquittal is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction having been made without evidence having been heard.2. The order of the lower Court is set aside, and there will be a re-trial before any Magistrate the District Magistrate may direct....
Sarat Chandra Bose Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1029
Cecil Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants for recovery of damages for the loss of a packet containing clothes, alwans, and other articles which were despatched from Calcutta for conveyance by the Eastern Bengal State Railway, the Rivers Steam Navigation Company, and the India General Navigation Company, Limited, to a place called Bejnishar, a steamer station on the river Padma. The goods were booked on the 13th November 1906 by the plaintiff in the name of their Calcutta agent, B.K. Sen, for delivery to the plaintiff No. 1. Prom the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, Eastern Bengal State Railway, it appears that they admitted that the parcel had been booked and had been lost in transit over that railway. The defence set up in their behalf was, however, that the railway was not liable, because the plaintiffs had failed in compliance with the provisions of Section 75 of the Railways Act to declare the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »