Kolkata Court February 1913 Judgments
Hari Charan Bose, and on His Death Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. Hari Das Ro ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.805
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a case of which the facts appear to be somewhat complicated at first sight, but the point before us is really a very simple one. The facts are sufficiently set out in the beginning of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff seeks to recover money, paid out by the Collector to the defendant No. 1 as surplus sale-proceeds belonging to the share of one Promotho. This money was left in the Collectorate by the plaintiff who now says that he had a right and seeks to recover it from defendant No. 1. It was left on the allegation that one-third of the surplus sale-proceeds belonged to Promotho, a third to Satya Prosad and the other third to the third brother, Lalit Mohan, and he himself asked to be allowed to take away two-thirds. He was allowed to do so after a considerable number of applications in the Court and he went away leaving this money at the disposal of Promotho. Promotho's creditor defendant No. 1 came along. He had got a de...
Tag this Judgment!Baburam Bag Vs. Madhab Chandra Pollay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal333,(1913)ILR40Cal565
Jenkins, C.J.1. Does not the principle of Walsh v. Lonsdale (1) (1882) 21Ch. D. 9. apply to the case?2. That case is distinguishable. I rely on Manchester Brewery Co. v. Coombs (2) [1901] 2 Ch. 608, 617. and Section 27, Specific Relief Act.3. There is no finding of knowledge of the plaintiff of the covenant in favour of the defendant. At the time of the lease with the plaintiff, possession of the defendant was under the old lease.Jenkins C.J.1. Notice will be implied of all his rights. The plaintiff ought to have enquired of the man in possession.2. Dr. Ghose. See Allen v. Anthony (1) (1816) 1 Mer. 282; 15 R. R. 113. and the observations of Jessel M.R. in Patman v. Harland (2) (1881) 17 Ch. D. 353. Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act throws the onus on you.3. I want an opportunity to show that I had no knowledge. The plaintiff was taken by surprise.4. Dr. Rashbehary Ghose (with him Babu Probodh Chandra Sat and Babu Haricharan Ganguli), for the respondent. Onus is on the lessee or pur...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co., Ld. Vs. Oriental Assu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal570
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the plaintiff company, the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co., Ld., against the defendants, the Oriental Assurance Co., Ld., asking that an injunction may be granted against the defendants, restraining them, their servants and agents, until the final determination of tins suit, from carrying on business under the name of the Oriental Assurance Co., Ld., or any other name, likely to mislead or deceive the public into the belief that the defendant company is the same as the plaintiff company, and from using the name 'The Oriental Assurance Co., Ld.', or any such other name as aforesaid, and from inviting and receiving applications for the shares, and from inviting or issuing policies, and from receiving monies under the name of the Oriental Life Assurance Co., Ld., or any such other name as aforesaid.2. Now, the plaintiff company is an old well-established firm, whose head office is in Bombay, but which has a branch office in Calcutt...
Tag this Judgment!Maulvi Nazir Ahshan Vs. Dalip Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.725
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Sub-Judge, second Court of Patna, dated the 7th September 1912, amending the sale certificate granted to Dalip Mahton on the 14th June 1912, should not be set aside and such further order passed as to this Court might seem fit.2. The history of the proceedings which gave rise to this Rule is as follows: There was a mortgage on which the mortgagee brought a suit, the mortgage being of a 3-anna 11-dam share of a certain property. The mortgagee got a decree against that property and became, under the decree, entitled to bring it to sale. He put in a petition for execution asking for the sale of a 3-anna 11-dam share of the property and a sale proclamation was accordingly issued to the effect, that 3-annas 11 dams would be sold. There was a dispute then between the mortgagee and the mortgagor as to the values of some of the properties appearing on the sale proclamation and the result of the dispute was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Roshanulla Vs. Hazir Mahmud and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.727
1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that it had not been shown that the petitioner was dispossessed in due course of law.2. On the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner was dispossessed by a legal process but one which ought not to have been applied. The result is that the Rule is made absolute and the case is remanded to the lower Court to be re-tried according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Basanta Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.876
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Maharaj Bahadur Singh, for an account. The plaintiff attained his majority on 20th September 1901, During his minority, one Khettra Nath Ray had been the manager of his property appointed by the District Judge of Murshidabad under Act XL of 1858. Upon that appointment defendant No. 2, Radhika Nund Mahenta Thakur, had entered into a security bond in favour of the District Judge by which he became personally responsible and also hypothecated certain immoveable property as security for the faithful discharge by Khetra Nath Ray of his duties as manager. Upon the plaintiff attaining majority, he took over the estate and called upon Khettra Nath Ray to render an account of his management. He also appointed Khettra Nath Ray as manager on a fixed salary. This office Khettra Nath Ray held for some 21/2 years, when the plaintiff terminated the engagement. During that period, Khettra Nath Ray appears to have admitted his liability for ...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Bihari Bejali Vs. Kanti Chandra Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.715
Herbert Carnduff, J.1. The appeal and the petition for revision before us attack an appellate order refusing to set aside an execution sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing it2. As to the appeal, it is, and must be, conceded that, if the original application for the setting aside of the sale was within the scope of Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no second appeal lies. But it is contended that the application did not fall under that rule, neither of the irregularities complained of by the judgment-debtor being an 'irregularity in publishing the sale,' and that it must, therefore, be held to have been made under Section 47 of the Code, in connection with which there is a right of second appeal.3. The irregularities in question are: (1) the failure to publish in the manner prescribed by Order XXI, Rule 54(2), the order for the attachment of the judgment-debtor's immoveable property, and (2) the omission to issue the notice required ...
Tag this Judgment!Telam Pramanik Vs. Adu Shaikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.791
Herbert Carnduff, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the dismissal by the lower Appellate Court of a suit for the recovery of possession of an agricultural holding. The original plaintiff and defendant each claimed under a registered permanent sub-lease granted by the tenant, Chandra Kant Majumdar. The learned Sub-Judge in the Court of Appeal below held that, regard being had to the provisions of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, such a sub-lease was void and conferred no title: whence it followed that the plaintiff could not succeed in ejectment against a person in the advantageous position of a defendant in possession.2. It is not without reluctance that I have arrived at the conclusion that this decision is right: and I say so for two reasons. In the first place, I have already joined, after argument, in a decidedly expressed opinion to the contrary--see Abdul Karim, Patwari v. Abdul Rahman 16 C.W.N. 618; 15 C.L.J. 672; 13 Ind. Cas. 364: while, in the secon...
Tag this Judgment!Probhash Chandra Roy Vs. Board of Examiners of the Pleadership and Muk ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.459
Imam, J.1. The petitioner, Provash Chunder Roy, a candidate for the Pleadership examination, obtained this Rule calling on the Board of Examiners to show cause why they should not publish his name in the list of successful candidates of the last year's Pleadership examination or why he should not be allowed to appear for the next Pleadership examination, he having fulfilled the conditions necessary under the law qualifying him to appear at such examinations.2. The facts that have led to this application appear to be these: The petitioner, after fulfilling the usual qualifying conditions, was permitted by the Board of Examiners to appear at their Pleadership examination, held in February 1912. After his answer papers had been submitted to the examiners of answers, he attempted to substitute with an examiner by means of a bribe fresh answer papers in place of those that had been originally written at the examination. Similar attempts were made by 29 other examinees. The examiner having r...
Tag this Judgment!Khetra Mohan Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Mohim Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.595
1. In the case out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiffs, the sole landlords, sued the defendant for rent and obtained, on the 26th April 1907, a consent-decree for the amount claimed (Rs. 315) payable in five instalments, the last to be forthcoming in January 1911. On the 24th February 1909, the defendants paid the exact amount of the first three instalments together, and on the 6th April 1911 the plaintiffs applied for execution in respect of the balance. The application, which was thus made more than three years after the date of the decree, has been dismissed by both the Courts below as time-barred by Article 6, as amended, of the third Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885.2. The plaintiffs have now preferred this second appeal, and the first point taken on their behalf is that the Article quoted has no application. In my view, however, this is not so. Read with Section 184, the Article provides, in these words, that 'every application for the execution of a decree made u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »