Kolkata Court January 1916 Judgments
Jamir Fakir Vs. Ram Lal Ghose Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.697
1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the compromise decree contained a contract involving a penalty within the meaning of Section 74 of the Contract Act. The learned Judge in the Court below held that he was unable to go behind the terms of the decree in which he appears to be in error. He also held that there was nothing unlawful or in the nature of penalty in the stipulations of the contract which was embodied in the decree.2. The terms of the decree, as stated in the judgment, which are admitted to be contract by the appellant, are as follows: It is ordered that out of the amount claimed and costs, a decree be passed for Rs. 400 after deducting Rs. 503, remitted by the plaintiff, and that the defendant do pay the said sum according to the instalments stated below. In default of payment of any instalment, the whole amount shall become payable at once together with the sum remitted.' So far, in our opinion, there is no penalty whatever. The case is precisely an ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Anandram Vs. Nityananda Barham and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.744
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, dated the 16th June 1915. The facts necessary for the purposes of this appeal are these: 2. The decree-holders obtained a mortgage-decree on the 8th September 1902 against one Raja Thakur Barham. The amount of the money due was Rs. 2,96,369-5-0, but after the mortgage decree was made absolute, the mortgage properties were sold for Rs. 2,93,405 and were purchased by the decree-holders. There was, therefore, a balance of Rs. 2,964-5-0 due to the decree-holders.3. The decree-holders made an application on the 25th May 1905 for a decree, under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of the above balance. On a notice being issued to the judgment-debtor, Raja Thakur Barham, he filed an objection and the 4th November 1905 was fixed for the objection to be heard. It appears, however, that the objection was not taken up on the date fixed and nobody took any notice of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.774
D. Chatterjee, J.1. This was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff had a revenue-free title to the property in suit and the defendant, the Secretary of State, had no right to assess revenue upon it. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals mainly on the grounds (1) that there is no evidence of any resumption decree having been passed in favour of the Government in 1842, and the findings based on the existence of such a decree are bad; (2) that assuming that there was such a decree or a resumption by the Revenue Authorities, no action having been taken upon the same for more than 60 years the right of the Government is barred; (3) that the plaintiff having held the property without payment of revenue for more than 60 years, no assessment can be made by reason of Clause 4 of the proviso to Section 26 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, I of 1886.2. Before discussing these points I may shortly state the facts that are admitted or found. The dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Hiramati Dassya Vs. Annada Prasad Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.788
1. We think that the proper way of dealing with this matter is to treat it precisely in the same manner as this Court treated a similar application in the case of Bhupendra Kumar Chakravarti v. Purna Chandra Boss 8 Ind. Cas. 34; 13 C.L.J. 132; 15 C.W.N. 506. There is no question now that the Munsif had full jurisdiction to decide the original suit with mesne profits claimed up to the date of the institution of suit, which amounted to a gross valuation of Rs. 1,200. There is also no doubt that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon mesne profits pendente lite and thereafter up to the date of delivery, inasmuch as those mesne profits are said by one party to amount to Rs. 3,000, and by the other to over Rs. 10,000, and the special pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif is limited to Rs. 2,000. Something, therefore, must be done to enable the decree-holder to have the full benefit of the decree so far as he is entitled to it; and the only question seems to be whether we should follow the...
Tag this Judgment!Jarwa Bai Vs. Pitambar Nilambar Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.689
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Chitty who heard the application which was made under the 18th Clause of the Second Schedule to the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act of 1909. The application was made by the appellant Jarwa Bai, and the learned Judge has disallowed the claim on the ground that he thought that the alleged transaction between Jarwa Bai on the one hand and the in. solvent on the other was not a bona fids transaction. At the hearing certain opposing creditors appeared, the opposing creditors being named Pitambar Nilambar Shah and others, and in addition the Official Assignee appeared. The conduct of the case seems to have been mainly undertaken by the opposing creditors, and a considerable amount of cross-examination was undertaken by the opposing creditors, the learned Counsel appearing for them cross-examining first, and the gentleman who appeared for the Official Assignee coming next. Now, it may been decided that those people wh...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.683
1. In this case we have read the explanation of the Deputy Magistrate. We make the Rule absolute on the ground on which it was granted, namely, that the immoveable properties belonging to the sureties should have been taken into consideration in deciding as to the stability of their position. We set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate rejecting the sureties and direct that he do further consider the matter in the light of our remarks in Revision Case No. 1498 of 19151 to which he refers. We must, however, notice the suggestion of the Additional Magistrate that the acceptance of the sureties should be made conditional on the deposit by them of a substantial sum in cash or Government securities. We cannot accede to this suggestion, which would practically nullify the effect of our remarks with regard to the general position of sureties. The order for bail will continue until the order regarding the sureties is passed.1See 32 Ind. Cas. 833--Ed....
Tag this Judgment!Kissendoyal Jitsaria and ors. Vs. Askaran Chowthmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.290
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri in which he gave judgment for the plaintiff.2. The action was brought to recover the price of 125 bales of jute, and the defence was that the delivery of the jute was not in accordance with the contract, and that in consequence of the inferior quality of the jute the defendants rejected the jute.3. Now, the contract was made on the 23rd of April 1914 for 125 bales of jute. It was guaranteed to yield after cutting 70 per cent, good sacking warp, and the payment was to be made as follows: reimbursement 90 per cent demand draft against documents and balance cash on delivery. That meant, and as I understand it was agreed to by both learned Counsel who argued this case, that when the buyers received the documents from the Railway Company, the plaintiff was entitled to receive 90 per cent. of the price, and when the goods were actually delivered then the balance namely, the 10 per cent., was to be paid.4....
Tag this Judgment!J.i.J. Hyam and anr. Vs. the Bengal Stone Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.83
Imam, J.1. The plaintiffs will get their costs up to and including the hearing on scale No. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid Vs. Abdul Miji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.710
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent and the only question involved in this appeal is, what is the rate of interest which the plaintiff is, entitled to get upon overdue instalments of rent from the defendants who are tenants under the plaintiff.2. The original kabulyat by which the tenancy was created is of the year 1879 and it provided for interest at the rate of 6 1/4 per cent per mensem. There was, however, a solehnamah between the parties in the year 1907, and the lower Appellate Court, differing from the Court of first instance, has held that the solehnamah created a new contract of tenancy. If there was any contract after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act the defendants are not liable to pay interest at mote than the rate mentioned in Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, So the question is whether by the solehnamah the parties entered into a new contract of tenancy. We think, upon a consideration of the terms of the compromise, that there was only a variation of some...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rani Jagdamba Kumari Vs. Raja Sri Nil Kanth Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.807
Beachcroft, J.1. Raja Nil Kanth Narain Singh brought a suit against Rani Jagdamba Kumari, the widow of the late Raja Sarada Narain Singh, for declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of Gadi Srirampur, a valuable estate in the District of Hazaribagh. He got a decree, against which the Rani filed an appeal and applied for stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal. This Court made an order on the 6th February 1912 that execution should be allowed to proceed upon the Raja's giving the security to the extent of one lakh of rupees for the payment of any mesne profits that might thereafter be found due to the Rani. Certain other undertakings were given by the Raja, which are immaterial for the purposes of the present Rule. A surety was found in the person of Babu Harnath Singh, the present petitioner; he executed a surety bond on the 3rd April 1912 and the Raja was duly put in possession of the estate.2. Raja Nil Kanth Narain Singh has since died and been succeeded by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »