Kolkata Court February 1915 Judgments
Patiram Bankerjee Vs. Kanknarrah Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal1050
Jenkins, C.J.1. Does the 'disclosure' contemplated by Section 230 mean disclosure at the time the contract is made, or before enforcement ?Woodroffef, J.2. If this was not a case of undisclosed principal on June 2nd, could it become a case of a disclosed principal in September ?]3. Both Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Section 230 contemplate that the principal should be disclosed before the completion of the contract: Lakshmandas v. Anna (1904) I.L.R. 17 Calc. 449, 454. The presumption does not arise, if disclosed is made subsequent to the contract.Jenkins, C.J.4. It would appear this is not a case of undisclosed principal, but the case of a contract of employment.5. Yes: the plaintiff did not enter into the contract as an agent. The contract was between the buyer and seller.6. Section 230 reproduces the English Law and is not in variance with, it: Hasonbhoy Visram v. Clapham (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 449, 454. On the English authorities the plum tiff is not liable. Fleet v. Murton (1871) I....
Tag this Judgment!Patiram Banerjee Vs. Kankinarra Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.607
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff carries on business as a jute-broker under the name of S.N. Banerjee & Co., and he has brought this suit for a declaration that an award, dated the 14th February 1914, is invalid and inoperative, and for consequential relief. In the alternative, he seeks a decree for indemnity.2. This award professes to have been made on a dispute between Messrs. Jardine, Skinner & Co., Managing Agents, Kankinarra Co., Limited, and Messrs. S.N. Banerjee & Co., with reference to a claim for damages for non-delivery of 250 bales jute bought and sold under contract No. D/2382 of 2nd Jane 1913.3. The bought note was in these terms:No. D/2382.Indian Jute Manufacturers' Association.Jute Contract.Calcutta, 2nd June 1913.Messrs. Jardine, Skinner & Co.Agents, Kankinarra Jute Mills Co., Ld.Dear Sirs,We have this day bought by your order and for your account from our principals(Here follows a description of the jute and provisions not material at this stage).Arbitration.--An...
Tag this Judgment!Promotha Nath Chakravarti Vs. Mohini Mohan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.573
1. The opposite party in this rule instituted a suit for recovery of money on a hatchitta against one Doyachand in the Court of the Munsif of Maldah. He applied for attachment before judgment of certain moveable properties of the defendant. The Court directed an attachment, but ordered that the properties were to be released from attachment on the defendant's paying Rs. 500 as cash security. The defendant paid Rs. 500 to the peon who went to attach the properties, which were accordingly released and the money was deposited in Court by the peon.2. Subsequently, another creditor of the said Doyachand applied to the District Judge of Murshidabad to have him adjudged an insolvent under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the petitioner was appointed interim Receiver of his estate. The petitioner thereupon applied to the Munsif of Maldah for payment of the said sum of Rs. 500 to him and for stopping payment of the amount to any rival claimant. The Munsif on the 11th April. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Rani Kuarmani Singha Mandhata Vs. His Highness the Hon'ble Iht ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.818
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a judgment of the learned First Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dated the 16th of May 1913, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that a kabala, dated the 7th June 1890, executed by the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards in favour of the late father of the defendant, and that a subsequent kabala, dated the 11th February 1901, executed in manner aforesaid in the like favour, are invalid and illegal, and for an order restoring the plaintiff to possession of the properties comprised in such kabalas and for certain alternative and consequential relief.2. The issues of law and fact were settled by the learned Judge on the 9th of December 1912.3. The defendant, on the 16th of February 1913, applied to the learned Judge for the trial of the 1st three issues under the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge assented to that application. The first three i...
Tag this Judgment!Badarennessa Chowdhurani Vs. Alam Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.877
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree obtained by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the rent of an occupancy holding. The judgment-debtor, the raiyat, raised an objection that as the holding was not transferable by custom or local usage, it could not be sold in execution of the decree obtained by the co-sharer landlord.2. The Courts below have given effect to the objection, and have disallowed the application for execution. The decree-holder has appealed to this Court.3. Now it has been held in a number of cases that an occupancy holding which is not saleable by custom or usage, cannot be sold in execution of a decree obtained by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the rent, and that in this respect a co-sharer landlord is in the same position as an ordinary execution creditor. See Durga Charan Mandal v. Kali Prasanna Sarkar 26 C. 727 : 3C.W.N. 586; Sadagar Sirkar v. Krishna Chandra Nath 26 C. 937 : 3C.W.N. 742; Jarip v. Ram Kumar De 3 C.W.N. 747. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Saha Sardar and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Rai Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.855
1. This appeal is directed against an order granting an interlocutory injunction. The case for the plaintiff-respondent is that under an ancient Crown grant, antecedent to the time of the Permanent Settlement, he is entitled to hold a market on every Thursday on his property known as Ram Chandradi and the defendants have maliciously started a new market on their property known as Gropaldi, which is situated at a distance of two miles. The plaintiff accordingly seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from holding their market on Thursdays, and also asks for an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the suit. He further claims substantial damages for loss of profit from his market, due to the establishment of the new market.2. It is not disputed that the market started by the defendants was opened in February 1912 and the present suit was not instituted till the 18th November 1914. In the interval, there had been attempts at breach of the peace and criminal cases...
Tag this Judgment!Khobhari Sah Vs. Jhaman Sah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.220
Coxe, J.1. In the suit out of which this Rule arises, the plaintiff's case was that he gave the defendant a certain amount of metal with which to prepare ornaments. He sued for the recovery of the metal, damages and the money advanced. When the case was heard, a petition was put in by both parties which runs as follows: 'It has been settled between the parties that this matter be enquired into by some Pleader who may be sent to the defendants' house, the boundaries of which are given below, so that he may see whether the defendants do the work of casting and whether bellows or signs of furnace or bellows are found in the said house. In case the aforesaid things or their signs are found to exist, a decree shall be given in favour of the plaintiffs, and in case of the said things being found not to exist, the suit shall be dismissed. The parties shall have no objection. For this reason we are sending Babu Jagat Prosanno Pleader.'2. For this reason, Babu Jagat Prosanno Mookerjee, Pleader,...
Tag this Judgment!Amritalal Hazra and ors. Vs. Emperor.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.513
Mookerjee, J.1. On the 21st November 1913, during the early hours of the morning, in execution of a warrant issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet, a search was made of a room, rented and occupied by one Sasankasekhar Hazra, alias Amritalal Hazra, at 296-1, Upper Circular Road, in the eastern--suburbs of Calcutta. The search warrant authorised the Commisioner of Police to search the premises for explosives, letters, and documents in connection with a bomb outrage committed at Moulvi Bazar on the 27th March 1913. At the search, the Police arrested Sasankasekhar Hazra as also three other persons, Dinesh Chandra Das Gupta, Chandrasekhar De and Sarada Charan Guha, who were found asleep inside the room. The Police found in the room various articles and papers, and amongstotbers, a totacco-tin fitted with three iron discs (two inside and one outside) and four iron clamps, another tin of similar size, four clamps made to fit the second tin, and other discs and clamps, finished and unfini...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Charan Bepari Vs. Aswini Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.883
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit instituted under Section 149 (3) of the Bengal Tenency Act. The plaintiff was successful in the Court of first instance but his claim has been dismissed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The landlord-defendant instituted a, suit for arrears of rent against the tenant-defendant in respect of the eleven parcels of land. The tenant pleaded in substance that he was liable to pay rent in respect of nine plots, but that in respect of the other two plots he was not liable to pay rent, as rent had already been recovered from him by the present plaintiff on the allegation that those two parcels were included in a property owned by him. The tenant thereupon paid into Court the entire sum claimed in the suit. Notice was thereafter issued to the present plaintiff, who forthwith instituted this suit under Section 149 (3), Bengal Tenancy Act. The question for decision is, whether Section 149 is applicable to the circumstances of this case.2. Sub-sect...
Tag this Judgment!Aftar Ali and ors. Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.252
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof with mesne profits. The litigation, which was commenced on the 24th August 1900 and has lasted well nigh for fifteen years, has passed through various stages; but the facts material for the decision of the question in controversy at this the final stage may be briefly recited.2. The plaintiff purchased an estate sold under the provisions of Section 70 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1885, on the 14th February 1890. The sale was confirmed on the 23rd August 1890. The plaintiff asserts that the lands now in dispute are comprised in Mouza Grhora Dumbar included in the estate purchased by him. The defendants contend on the other hand that the lands are comprised in Mouza Pitaboi owned by them; and they concede that they have no interest in Mourn Grhora Dumbar. The Judge has found that according to the that map prepared in 1861 the lands in disput...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »