Kolkata Court January 1915 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.
Sukhlal Chundermull Vs. Eastern Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal771(1),(1915)ILR42Cal735,31Ind.Cas.238
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. According to a course or decisions in this Court, the order complained of is not a 'judgment' from which an appeal lies under the Letters Patent. Reference has been made to a number of Madras authorities, which are entitled to every respect but which we cannot follow in preference to the course of decisions in this Court. It has always been recognised that the Madras High Court has taken a somewhat broader view of Clause 15 of the Charter than has prevailed here. The decisions of this Court rest upon what was said by Sir Richard Couch in Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co. 8 B.L.R. 433 17 W.R. 364. In this case there is not even an appeal allowed under the Code, so that it cannot be suggested, if the order made been had in a Mofussil Court, that an appeal would have lain under Order XLI. But that perhaps is not so material here, as it would be in Bombay where it would possibly have been regarded as decisive of the question against the appella...
Raja Narendra Lal Khan Vs. NobIn Behary Bhattacharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal758,28Ind.Cas.133
1. The provisions of Clause (c) of Section 169 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are quite clear. They are: 'If there remains a balance after these sums have been paid, there shall be paid to the decree-holder therefrom any rent which may have fallen due to him in respect of the tenure or holding between the institution of the suit and the date of the confirmation of the sale.' If the amount claimed by the landlord is any part of the arrears between the institution of the suit and the date of the. confirmation of the sale he is clearly entitled to it. It is true that the tenant could under Sub-section 2 dispute the decree-holder's right to receive any sum on account of rent under Clause (c). But that must be upon the ground of payment or satisfaction in any other way. The Legislature could not have meant to apply the limitation provisions of the Schedule ill, Article 2, to the express provisions of Clause (c) of the section, because the limitation only provides for suits and not applications o...
Chulhan Singh and anr. Vs. Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal769,28Ind.Cas.383
1. This second appeal arises out of a rent suit, which has been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs, being usufructuary mortgagees of the share for which the rent is claimed, have not registered their names under Section 78 of Act VII of 1876. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff, firstly, on the finding that the plaintiffs are mortgagees and not the had an and secondly, that before the Munsif they had not obtained registration of their names under Section 78 of Act VII of 1870. Fending the appeal to the District Judge they got their names registered and on the authority of numerous cases of this Court with respect to such proceedings, of which the one most in point is the unreported case Second Appeal No. 137 of 1911, whore it was held that where a suit failed by reason of the non-production of the succession certificate in the Court of first instance, the succession certificate might be obtained and tiled in the Appellate Court on the appellant paying the cost of; the previo...
Lala Singh and ors. Vs. Mir Latif HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.477
1. This point winch is raised in this second appeal raises the ancient controversy regarding the effect of presumption of continuous possession front title, ft was laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Runjeet Ram Panday v. Goburdhun Ram Panday 20 W.R. 25 (P.C.) that the ordinary presumption would be that possession went with the title, hut that presumption cannot, of course, be of any avail in the presence of clear evidence to the contrary. But where there is strong evidence of possession, as it is here on the part of the respondent, opposed to evidence apparently strong also on the part of the appellant, their Lordships think that in estimating' the weight duo to the evidence on both sides, the presumption may in the peculiar circumstances of that case be regarded. Upon that a Bench of this Court in the case of Dharm Singh v. Hur Pershad Singh 12 C. 38 refer to this presumption arising on title found to he in the plaintiff, and they say that if the Judge had disposed of the e...
Lala Seosaran Lal Vs. Harihar Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.452
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 536-13-6 and interest from the defendant. The defendant was admittedly the servant of the plaintiff and the plaint said that he misappropriated the amount. The plaint also said that the defendant was dismissed in the end of March 1907, and on the 10th March 1907 the defendant appears to have filed a certain list of expenditure, called farad kharcha, which has been reproduced in his written statement and which he desired to be set off against the sum claimed by the plaintiff, which sum the defendant admitted in his written statement had been received by him.2. The defence in the Court below urged that the suit was barred by limitation by reason of Article 62. The lower Courts, the Munsif at any rate, seem to have held that it came under Article 64, and that although the plaintiff did not ask for an account and although it was found that there had been no misappropriation, he seemed to think that the suit ...
Surjamull Agarwala Vs. Ram Chandra Mistry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.123
1. By an indenture of mortgage, dated the 24th January 1910 and made between Shyamlal Chatterjee of the one part and the respondents to this appeal, Ram Chandra Mistry and others (hereinafter called the mortgagees) of the other part, Shyamlal Chatterjee, in consideration of a previous advance of Rs. 5,178-11-9 made to him by the mortgagees and of further advances to be made to him by them up to Rs. 20,000 (including the said sum of Rs. 5,178-11-9), mortgaged by way of floating-charge his beneficial interest in the trade or business of contractor of stone collections, petty contracts and all and every kind of contract works undertaken by him and carried on at Jaiuti and elsewhere under the Quarrying Division, Lower Ganges Bridge, or wherever the trade or business might be carried on thereafter either under the Quarrying Division, Lower Ganges Bridge, or under any one else who employed him, and also all books and other debts then due or thereafter to become due and owing to him on accoun...
The East Indian Railway Company Vs. Changa Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.245
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the East Indian Railway Company for the loss of a certain parcel consigned to the Company from conveyance from Bombay to Bankipore, the value of which is stated to be Rs. 416-5-7 1/2 pies. After a prolonged correspondence a bout the claim, the plaintiffs submitted to the defendants a detailed statement of the goods contained in the parcels, and it appears from that statement that fancy silk handkerchiefs of the value of Rs. 138-2 as had been lost with the parcels. The defendants thereupon denied their liability, relying on Section 75 of the Railways Act, IX of 1890, and Schedule II thereto annexed. The Munsif and the Subordinate Judge in concurrence held that the defendants were not liable for the silk, inasmuch it had not been declared or insured. But they held that the plaintiffs can recover the value of the other goods contained in the parcel, which did not appear to have come within Schedule If of the Act....
East Indian Railway Company Vs. Changai Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal888
Holmwood and Mullick, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the East Indian Railway Company for the loss of a certain parcel consigned to the company for conveyance from Bombay to Bankipur the value of which is stated to be Rs. 516-5-71/2 pies. After a prolonged correspondence about the claim the plaintiffs submitted to the defendants a detailed statement of the goods in the parcels, and it appears from that statement that fancy silk handkerchiefs of the value of Rs. 138-2 annas had been lost with the parcel. The defendants thereupon denied their liability relying on Section 75 of the Railways Act, IX of 1890, and Schedule II thereto annexed. The Munsif and the Subordinate Judge in concurrence held that the defendants were not liable for the silk inasmuch as it had not been declared or insured. But they held that the plaintiffs can recover the value of the other goods contained in the parcel, which did not appear to have come within Schedule II...
In Re: Abul Kalam Azad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal730
Jenkins, C.J.1. Without in any way assenting to the proposition that Abul Kalam Azad is a person having an interest in any property in respect of which the order of forfeiture has been made and so entitled. to come before any High Court under Section 17 of the Indian Press Act of 1910, it appears to me that there is another and absolutely fatal objection to this application. It appears, though the petition is not in order on this point, that on the 2nd November 1914 the Governor-General in Council in pursuance of Section 4(1) of the Press Act, 1910, declared the security of Rs. 2,000 deposited in respect of ' The Comrade and the Hamdard Press Kuchai-Chalan, Delhi' and all copies of the issue of the new paper called the. The Comrade bearing the date the 26th of September, 1914, wherever found to be forfeited to His Majesty, and this order was served an the person concerned, presumably the Keeper of the Printing-Press on the 3rd of November 1914. The Governor-General in Council in so act...
In Re: Abdul Kalam Azad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal770,30Ind.Cas.746
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. Without in any way assenting to the proposition that Abul Kalm Azad is a person having and interest in any property in respect of which the order of forfeiture has been made and so entitled to come before any High Court under Section 17 of the Indian Press Act of 1910, it appears to me that there is another and absolutely fatal objection to this application. It appears, though the petition is not in order on this point, that on Council in pursuance of Section 4(1) of the Press Act, 1910, declared the security of Rs. 2,000 deposited in respect of 'The Comrade and the Hamdard Press, Kucha-i-(sic) Delhi' and all copies of the issue of the (sic) paper called the The Comrade, bearing the (sic) the 26teh of September 1914, wherever (sic) to be forfeited to His Majesty and this (sic) was served on the person concerned, (sic) the keeper of the printing press, on (sic) 3rd of November 1914. The Government (sic) General in Council in so acting was exercising a power conf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »