Kolkata Court January 1913 Judgments
Ahmad Ali Vs. Raisunnessa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.985
1. In this case, the petitioner-appellant objects to the order of the District Judge of Bhagulpur refusing to hear his application to be appointed guardian of the persons of his minor daughter and his minor son. It appears that the petitioner has divorced his wife and, therefore, they are not agreed as to the custody of the children. The petitioner filed an application to be appointed guardian but that application was dismissed for non-appearance. He applied for a re hearing; but that petition, was also rejected. He then filed this second substantive application for appointment as guardian. The learned District Judge has held that the application is not maintainable and has dismissed it with costs.2. In case it might be said that no appeal lay in such a case, the petitioner obtained from this Court a Rule (No. 5236 of 1910) in order that this Court might, if necessary, interfere in revision. We have no doubt whatever that the District Judge is in error in refusing to entertain the pres...
Tag this Judgment!indra Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Srish Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal537
Carnduff and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This appeal is from an appellate order, and it and the Rule connected therewith arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif of Jangipore for the recovery from the local Municipality of a small sum of Rs. 34-3 said to have been illegally recovered from him. As will appear from what we are going to say, 'there is no second appeal in this case, and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed as incompetent. We make no order as to costs.2. We now proceed to deal with the Rule. The Munsif of Jangi pore was vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. He, however, thought fit to try the case, not in the summary manner provided by the law, but at length as if it had been an ordinary suit, and he gave the plaintiff a modified decree. An appeal was then preferred to the District Judge by the plaintiff, and the District Judge held that the Munsif by following the ordinary procedure and not the summary procedure, had acted without ju...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chandra Pal Chowdhry Vs. Triguna Prasad Pal Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal541
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. The plaintiff appeals. He had been one of the defendants in a suit for partition. The suit had terminated in a compromise and the decree for partition had been in accordance with it. The present suit was for a declaration that in one respect the compromise deed had not expressed the intention of the parties. -The appellant's case was that it had been the intention to preserve a certain tank and the appurtenances thereto as joint property, but that by mistake these items had been allotted to certain persons who were made defendants in the present suit. The prayer was that the deed of compromise should be rectified accordingly.2. The appellant's suit was dismissed upon two grounds. The first ground is that the suit was barred by res judicata. The appellant had made an application for review of the judgment in the previous suit, upon the same ground as that put forward in the present suit. That application for review had been unsuccessful. The District Judge ap...
Tag this Judgment!Jibanessa Khatun and ors. Vs. Majidunnessa Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.398
1. These two appeals have been preferred against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Backergunge, deciding, on the application of the plaintiff, Majidunnessa Khatun, in a suit for the partition of the Haturia estate, that a Receiver should be appointed pendente lite, and a subsequent and ancillary order of the same Judge appointing a certain Mr. Tweedie to the receivership.2. The earlier order is assailed on two grounds, namely:3. First, that there is still pending before the District Judge of Backergunge a proceeding under Sections 93 to 100 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, for the appointment of a common manager of the Haturia estate, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the appointment of a Receiver and secondly, that on the merits, no case for the appointment of a Receiver under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been established.4. In support of the legal objection raised by the first of these grounds, the learned Counsel for the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chandra Pal Chowdhury Vs. Triguna Prosad Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.444
1. The plaintiff appeals. He had been one of the defendants in a suit for partition. The suit had terminated in a compromise and the decree for partition had been in accordance with it, The present suit was for a declaration that in one respect, the compromise deed had not expressed the intention of the parties. The appellant's case was that it had been the intention to preserve a certain tank and the appurtenances thereto as joint property, but that by mistake, these items had been allotted to certain parsons who were made defendants in the present suit. The prayer was that the deed of compromise should be rectified accordingly.2. The appellant's suit was dismissed upon two grounds. The first ground is that the suit was barred by res judicata. The appellant had made an application for review of the judgment in the previous suit upon the same ground as that put forward in the present suit. That application for review had been unsuccessful, The District Judge appears to have held that t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoban Shahu Vs. Ghanasham Shahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.457
Holmwood, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises are briefly as follows: The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of lands mortgaged to him by the defendant No. 3 on the 10th Sraban 1309, corresponding to 26th July 1902. The plaintiff had sued on his mortgage in 1903 and the defendant No. 2 got himself impleaded on the ground that he had dispossessed the plaintiff. On the 2nd June 1904, the plaintiff got a decree against defendant No. 3 only, upon compromise. The suit was dismissed as against defendant No. 2. By consent of the parties, a mortgage decree was passed, and two months' time was given to the defendant No. 3 to pay the mortgage money with interest &c.; according to the account to be taken, and in default the mortgage property was ordered to be sold. With regard to the contention that has been raised that the decree was not a mortgage decree, I need only point out that both Section 86 and Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act say that in a suit for for...
Tag this Judgment!Leakat HosseIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal470
Sharfuddin and Richardson JJ.1. This Rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside, on the ground that the order of the Commissioner of Police, dated the 4th August, 1912, does not come within the scope of Clause (4) of Section 62A of the Calcutta Police Act (Beng. IV of 1866), and. Clause (4) of Section 39A of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act (Beng. II of 1866). The two sections are in identical terms, and were inserted in the Acts referred to by the Calcutta and Suburban Police (Amendment) Act (Beng. III of 1910).2. Clause (4) runs as follows: 'The Commissioner of Police may also, by order in writing, prohibit any procession or public assembly, whenever and for so long as he considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety: Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than seven days without the sanc...
Tag this Judgment!Grey Vs. Lamond Walker
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal523
Fletcher, J.1. In this suit Mr. Charles Edward Grey, the Official Assignee of Bengal, and as such assignee of the property of Gurmukh Roy Kadia, an insolvent, sues three gentlemen who carry on business in copartnership together under the style of Messrs. Walker, Goward & Co. to recover Rs. 3,199-2-9 as damages in respect of a breach of two contracts for the sale of sugar. The contracts were both dated the 15th of August 1910, and were both for the sale of 50 tons of Java sugar delivered over July, August September and October, 1911, by installments of 12 1/2 tons each mouth.2. On the 15th of June, 1911, Gurmukh Roy Kadia was adjudicated an insolvent, he being in the adjudication order described as carrying on business under the style of Gurmukh Roy Ramessur, and no steps were taken by the Official Assignee until the 18th of September, 1911, for the purpose of completing these contracts. On the 18th of September, 1911, Mr. Grey wrote to the defendants in these terms: 'I have to give you...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Moharana Vs. Ram Narayan Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.379
1. The only question which arises in this second appeal, which has occupied a far longer time than it should have done, is whether the Subordinate Judge in the Court below is right in holding that the holding, being one which has come into existence from before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act and not being governed by it nor by the Bengal Tenancy Act, must, therefore, be governed by usage or custom; and there being no proof of such usage or custom of the transferability of non-agricultural holdings as that of a tank in the present case, whether the decision giving the plaintiffs khas possession was correct on the authority of the case of Madhu Sudan Sen v. Kamini Kanta Sen 32 C. 1023; 9 C.W.N. 8952. We are of opinion that the case cited has no application to the present case, and we are fortified in this opinion by the fact that the learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgment in that case, delivered another judgment 20 days later in an unreported case, Maharajadhiraj ...
Tag this Judgment!Leakat HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.685
1. This Rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside on the ground that the order of the Commissioner of Police dated the 4th August 1912 does not come within the scope of Clause (4) of Section 62 A. of the Calcutta Police Act (Act IV B.C. of 1866) and Clause (4) of Section 39A of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act (Act II B.C. of 1866). The two sections are in identical terms and were inserted in the Acts referred to by the Calcutta and Suburban Police (Amendment) Act (Act III B.C. of 1910).2. Clause (4) runs as follows: 'The Commissioner of Police may also, by order in writing, prohibit any procession of public assembly whenever and for so long as he considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety: Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than seven days without the sanction of the Lieutenant-Gov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »