Kolkata Court April 1915 Judgments
Basir Ali Vs. Hafiz Nazir Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.406
Chaudhri, J.1. Formerly it was the practice of this Court to grant sale certificates in respect of sales by Receivers under orders of the Court. In the case of Minatoonnessa Bibee v. Khatoonnesm Bibee 21 C. 479 Sale, J., held after a careful consideration of the earlier cases that a sale by the Receiver was a sale by the Court. In Golam Hossein Cassim Arif v. Fatima Begum 6 Ind. Cas. 300 : 16 C.W.N. 394 Fletche, J., disallowed an application for confirmation of such a sale and for sale certificate drawing a distinction between 'sales by the Court' and 'sale's under the Court.' Owing to this decision great difficulties have arisen and sales effected by Receivers or Commissioners of Partition under orders of the Court have in many instances not yet been completed. The difficulty has been in purchasers obtaining proper conveyances. In this particular case by the decree in Appeal No. 56 of 1910, dated the 11th May 1911, it was amongst other things ordered that one Shaikh Mahboob Ali should...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar Raut and ors. Vs. Sadasiv Jhatap Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.705
Holmwood, J.1. This was a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the second appeal should not be admitted out of time and registered, on the ground that the time taken in the infructuous proceedings in the review matter is bona fide litigation which would save limitation.2. It appears that the father of the minor applicant died during the hearing of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court's judgment was passed on the 11th August 1914. The decree was passed on the 15th August 1914. There was an application for review on the 10th September 1914. The learned Subordinate Judge admitted the application, issued notice and fixed the 7th November 1914 for hearing. In the meantime, he was transferred, and on the 7th November 1914 the District Judge heard the parties in the review matter and wrote a considered judgment rejecting the review. The applicants then applied for copy of the lower Court's judgment and decree on the 30th November 1914. They ob...
Tag this Judgment!Jadab Chandra Sardar and anr. Vs. Govinda Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.466
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from a decision of the learned District Judge of 24-Pergannahs dated the 23rd January 1913, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the second Court of Basirhat. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for ejectment. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were under-raiyats under the defendant No. 4. Then the defendant No. 4 transferred his occupancy right to the first three defendants. After that transfer, the landlord settled the land with the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then sued to recover possession of the land. The under-raiyats raised many defences, but it has been found by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court that the interest that the defendant No. 4 had was that of an occupancy raiyat and that there is no custom of transfer. Therefore, when the fourth defendant transferred the property to the other three defendants, the landlord had a right to re-tenter upon the property. But it is said that the defendants N...
Tag this Judgment!Gangahari Chakrabarti Vs. NabIn Chandra Banikya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.959
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The question for decision in this Rule is, whether the suit is barred by limitation. The case for the plaintiff is that about eleven years ago he made over to the defendants, goldsmiths by profession, gold ornaments of the weight of one tola in order that they might be melted and new ornaments made therewith; no time was fixed within which the work was to be finished. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants put him off from time to time and that ultimately when on the 24th March 1914, he pressed the defendants for the ornaments, they promised to make and deliver them within fifteen days. This period, however, expired, and yet the plaintiff has not been able to get the ornaments. He consequently instituted this suit on the 11th May 1914, and prayed, in the alternative, either that the defendants be directed to return to him the one tola of gold or that a decree for the price thereof, namely, Rs. 25, might be made against them. The Small Cause Court Judge has di...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitram Rambilas Vs. Bridhichand Kesrichand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal1140
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal From an order of Mr. Justice Imam made apparently under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act. There was an arbitration followed by an award. But it is alleged that there was misconduct on the part, of the arbitrators; and it is on the ground of this misconduct that the application was made to the Court and succeeded before the learned Judge. The misconduct, suggested was the failure to hear evidence. Whether there was that failure or not is a matter in dispute.2. But the way in which the case was presented to the Learned Judge and in which he understood it appears from this passage in the judgment; 'The petitioners' complaint is that the arbitrators refused to allow them to adduce evidence to establish their contentions and proceeded with the arbitration according to the Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration established by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and not according to the law under the Indian Arbitration Act. The petitioners' contention is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Marshall Vs. Grandhi Venkata Ratnam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal1169
Jenkins, C.J.1. We were told that he was ordered to pay costs without being found guilty of contempt.Since getting a copy of the order I find from the judgment that he has been found guilty of contempt.Jenkins, C.J.2. That gets over the difficulty of the appeal lying.3. Yes. The terms of the injunction restrain the defendants only, and nothing is said about their 'servants or agents.' Notice of the injunction was directed to be served, on Mr. Cameron, the Manager of Messrs. Kendrew & Co., whereas Mr. Marshall is an employee under him. It is not a mandatory injunction, but a prohibitory one. The words ' servants and agents have been added in the notice of motion for committal for contempt for breach thereof.4. I submit (i) that, the injunction being directed to the defendant firm, Mr. Marshall could not be proceeded against for breach of injunction (might be for contempt): see Lord Wellesley v. The Earl of Mornington, (ii) If I could not be found guilty of broach of injunction, I could ...
Tag this Judgment!John Innes Marshall Vs. Grandhi Venkata Ratnam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.4
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Greaves, which has been treated before us as an order finding that there had been a contempt by the appellant Marshall which merited, if not imprisonment, at any rate the payment of the costs of the motion. The notice of motion called upon J.I. Marshal], an assistant of the defendant firm to take notice that on Monday, the 29th of March 1915, an application would be made on behalf of the plaintiff for an order that he, J.I. Marshall, do stand committed to the custody of the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail for having committed a breach of the injunction granted by Mr. Justice Greaves on the 20th March 1915, restraining the defendant firm, their servants and agents from disposing, selling or dealing in any manner with the goods referred to in the plaint. That notice at motion is erroneous, for the injunction makes no mention of Mr. Marshall or of servants and agents. It necessarily follows from this that the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitram Rambilas Vs. Bridhichand Kesrichand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.681
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Imam made apparently under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act. There was an arbitration followed by an award. But it is alleged that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators; and it is on the ground of this misconduct that the application was made to the Court and succeeded before the learned Judge. The misconduct suggested was the failure to hear evidence Whether there was that failure or not is a matter in dispute.2. But the way in which the case was presented to the learned Judge and in which he understood it appears from this passage in the judgment: 'The petitioners' complaint is that the arbitrators refused to allow them to adduce evidence to establish their contentions and proceeded with the arbitration according to the Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration established by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, and not according to the law under the Indian Arbitration Act. The petitioners' contention...
Tag this Judgment!Jamahar Kumari Bibi Vs. Askaran Boid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.855
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit occasioned by the determination adversely to the plaintiff, Jamahar Kumari Bibi, of a claim to property preferred by her in execution proceedings.2. This property is No. 147, Cotton Street, and Chitty, J., has held that Jamahar, though ostensibly its owner, is in truth merely a benamidar for the judgment-debtor, her husband, Chatrapat Singh. He accordingly has dismissed the suit. From this judgment the present appeal has been preferred.3. The house was put up for sale in execution of a decree against Chatrapat Singh and was ostensibly bought by Jamahar on the 10th of April 1897 for Rs. 50,000. No cash passed and the explanation is that on the 2nd of March 1896 the decree was expressed to be assigned to Jamaharin consideration of Rs. 1,10,000, and the Rs. 50,000 was set off against a corresponding part of what was due under the decree.4. Jamahar contends that the assignment to her of the decree is free from flaw and that the defendants have not es...
Tag this Judgment!Ledu, Coachman Vs. Hira Lal Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.625
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of dismissal in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a contract. The defendant is the Nazir of the Court of the District Judge of Barisal. The case for the plaintiff is that there was a contract between him and the defendant that if the latter provided his son with the post of a permanent peon within two years, the plaintiff would give the defendant Rs. 150, and that if the defendant failed to secure the appointment, he would return the money paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with the terms of the contract, he has from time to time paid the defendant several sums aggregating Rs. 100, and that the defendant has failed to provide his son with the appointment, though the two years have elapsed. The plaintiff consequently sues to recover the money. The defendant denied the truth of the allegations of the plaintiff, and also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as it was based on an illegal and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »