Kolkata Court July 1913 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.
Bhupendra Nath Basu Vs. Ranjit Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal384
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the plaintiff, Mr. Bhupendra Nath Basu, calling on Maharaja Ranjit Singh Bahadur and Mr. Surendra Nath Banerjee, defendants in the suit, to show cause why an injunction should not be awarded against them restraining them, until the final determination of the suit and until further orders from exercising their powers and functions as non-official additional members of the Council of the Governor-General of India.2. The case has been argued by Mr. C.R. Das on behalf of the plaintiff and a good many interesting and difficult questions have been raised during the course of the argument. In my opinion, this application must fail upon the facts. The question as to the jurisdiction of His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, and to what extent he can make regulations under Section 6 of the Indian Councils Act, 1909, so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is one of considerable importance, and in my opinion it is not necessary to ...
Ameer Ali Vs. Yakub Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal347
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe in a suit for rent.2. The plaintiff sues to recover rent from the defendant. In his plaint, he states that the defendant had on the 6th of July 1898 executed a kabuliyat which was not registered and never came into operation. He claims rent at the rate of Rs. 4. It is urged before us that as the kabulayat was not registered and consequently never came into operation under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, no oral evidence could be given to show that the rent was fixed at Rs. 4. This contention is clearly unfounded. Section 92 of the Evidence Act, on which reliance is placed, is of no assistance to the appellant. It has been repeatedly laid down in this Court, as is clear from the case of Banka Behary Christian v. Rai Chandra Pal (1909) 14 C.W.N. 141 and the earlier decisions mentioned there, that a tenancy can' be proved without proving the lease, if there be one. T...
Ramesh Chandra Banerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal350
Woodroffe, J.1. The charge in the Magistrate's Court was of two separate offences laid in an alternative form. The first charge was that the accused, on or about the 1st November 1912, at Comilla, made preparation for committing dacoity in a particular manner which was assigned to be as follows, namely, by assembling together with arms, masks and implements which might be used for the commission of dacoity. The offence there charged was one under Section 399 of the Penal Code; all else in the charge than the allegation of preparation being merely particulars as to the preparation alleged. It then proceeded in the alternative to charge an offence under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code in that on the said date, and at the same place, the accused assembled together for the purpose of committing dacoity. Judging from the record before us it would seem that before the Sessions Judge the charges were treated not alternatively but as additional. This appears both from the order sheet, the...
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. NabIn Chandra Chakravarty ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.851
1. We dismiss this appeal for this reason. It appears to us that a fair reading of the judgment under appeal is that there was no such relationship between the parties established as would preclude the application of the doctrine of adverse possession. The plaintiff in this case, as in all other cases, relied on the khatian and that alone, for the purpose of establishing that relationship. The Courts were not satisfied on the entry in the khatian that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant. Although there was an entry which was susceptible of that meaning, having regard to the fact of long possession--possession which, according to the judgment of the Munsif, was prior to the entry--and to the fact that no payment of rent was ever made, evidently the inference drawn was that not only was the relationship of landlord and tenant not established, but further that there has been an adverse possession proved which furnishes an answer to the plaintiff's claim.2. The appeal is acco...
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ram Kumar Chakravarti and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.856
1. Both Courts have agreed in dismissing this suit; and it is conceded that no case is more favourable to the plaintiff than this. The Munsif expressly purported to follow the decision in Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Roshan Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 518; 39 C. 453; 16 C.W.N. 93 n.; 15 C.L.J. 203, where, in circumstances like the present, the learned Judges considered that hostile right was claimed to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and no suit was brought until more than 12 years after. Therefore, it was thought that the suit as framed was clearly barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed. That decision was certainly binding upon the lower Appellate Court, as it is on us, and we must, therefore, dismiss the appeal....
Ambica Charan Dutt Vs. Ramgati Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.571
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 1908 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. 900-5-0 or in default of payment of that sum to bring the mortgaged property to sale.3. In 1906 the mortgagee'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 26th May 1908, the plaintiff deposited in Court the sum of 116-4-9 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 defendant No....
Amir Ali Vs. Aykup Ali Khan Saudagor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.509
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe in a suit for rent.2. The plaintiff sues to recover rent from the defendant. In his plaint he stated that the defendant had, on the 6th of July 1898,; executed a kabuliat which was not registered and never came into operation. He claims rent at the rate of Rs. 4. It is urged before us that as the kabuliat was not registered and consequently never came into operation under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, no oral evidence could be given to show that the rent was fixed at Rs. 4. This contention is clearly unfounded. Section 92 of the Evidence Act, on which reliance is placed, is of no assistance to the appellant. It has been repeatedly laid down in this Court, as is clear from the case of Banka Behary Christian (Beni Madhab Christian v. RajChandra Pal 2 Ind. Cas. 202 : 14 C.W.N. 141 and the earlier decisions mentioned there, that a tenancy can be proved without proving the lease,...
In Re: Crompton and Co. Ltd. and Mohan Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal770,(1914)ILR41Cal313
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal to set aside an award made by one Mr. Pooler dated the 16th September 1912. The grounds upon which the application is made are set out in the affidavits of Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and Mr. Lal Chand.2. The petitioners complain that they received no notice from Mr. Pooler of his intention to enter upon the reference, and that he paid the defendant firm one visit for about ten minutes only, and save and except for that visit the petitioners did not know, prior to the said Mr. Pooler making his award, of any steps being taken by him in connection with the said reference, nor was any notice of the time or place of meeting sent or given to the petitioners, nor had they or either of them any interview with or communication from the said Mr. Pooler with regard to the reference; that they were desirous of being heard, and of adducing evidence before the arbitrator, but no opportunity was given to them. This is admitted by M...
Bengal Provincial Railway Co. Vs. Gopi Mohan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal368,(1914)ILR41Cal308
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Digambar Chatterjee confirming the decree of the lower Appellate Court.2. The suit was one brought by the plaintiff against a Railway Company for damages. The cause of action alleged was that a train of the defendant Company ran into and damaged the plaintiff's carriage as it was crossing the defendant Company's line. The question therefore turns upon whether or not there was negligence on the part of defendant Company, and, if so, whether or not there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. As this case comes before the High Court by way of second appeal, we cannot disturb any finding of fact, if there was any evidence to support it. The Judge of the lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff's carriage was the running of the train against the carriage, and he finds that there was negligence on the part o...
Crompton and Co. Ld. Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.391
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal to set aside an award made by one Mr. Pooler, dated the 16th September 1912. The grounds upon which the application is made are set out in the affidavits of Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and Mr. Lal Chand.2. The petitioners complain that they received no notice from Mr. Pooler of his intention to enter upon the reference, and that he paid the defendant firm one visit for about ten minutes only and save and except for that visit the petitioners did not know, prior to the said Mr. Pooler making his award, of any steps being taken by him in connection with the said reference, nor was any notice of the time or place of meeting sent or given to the petitioners, nor had they or either of them any interview with or communication from the said Mr. Pooler with regard to the reference; that they were desirous of being heard and of adducing evidence before the arbitrator, but no opportunity was given to them. This is admitted by Mr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »