Kolkata Court January 1916 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.
In Re: the Indian Arbitration Act (ix of 1899)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.3
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. Joy Lall and Company entered into a contract 'for principals' for the sale of certain goods to the Mulliks hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants respectively. The defendants did not take delivery of the goods and the plaintiffs referred the matter of their dispute to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce under a Clause in the contract. The defendants thereupon took a plea before the Chamber that it had no jurisdiction (1) inasmuch as the plaintiffs were merely brokers in the transaction and the contract was 'for principals,' (2) there were fraud and misrepresentation when the contract was entered into, that is to say, in fact Joy Lall and Company had no principals at all, although the contract purported to be by them as brokers on behalf of principals. The Chamber has made an award in favour of the plaintiffs. In answer to the application now made the plaintiffs alleged that the...
Mohini Mohan Mozumdar Choudhury Vs. Surendra Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.524
D. Chatterjee, J.1. One Ram Kanai obtained a decree for money against the judgment-debtor. The respondent Surendra purchased this decree and applied to have his name substituted as a decree-holder and to execute the decree. The appellant Mohini, having a decree against Ram Kanai, having attached the said decree of Ram Kanai and as an attaching creditor, opposed the application of the respondent on the allegation that the kobala was fraudulent and benami. The first Court allowed the objection. On appeal the District Judge has held the kobala to be good and valid and allowed the objection of the respondent. The attaching creditor appeals on the ground that no appeal lay to the District Judge. This would depend upon whether the case comes within the purview of Section 47, Clause 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is whether the applicant Surendra was a representative of the decree-holder and was as such entitled to execute the decree. This question would apparently come withi...
Bhupendra Nath Bhose Vs. E.D. Sasson and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.30
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff's attorney that he has a lien on the judgment obtained by the plaintiffs against the defendants and that his lien has priority over all other claims. It appears that prior to the decree in this suit the defendants had obtained judgment upon an award in their favour, dated the 19th March 1915. The award was filed on the 30th April 1915 and became capable of immediate execution. By that decree the defendants were allowed Rs. 1,451-9 which included costs to the extent of Rs. 133 against the present plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs obtained a decree against Sassoon & Co., namely, on the 10th August 1915 for Rs. 1,431-8-0. On the 24th August, Sassoon & Co., applied on a tabular statement that satisfaction of the plaintiffs' decree might be entered. Woodroffe, J., held that it was a proper application, but inasmuch as it appeared that a prohibitory order had been issued against the plaintiffs in execution of a decree w...
Satyendra Nath Dey Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.110
1. The order of the District Judge appears to be in accordance with Section 56 of Act IV of 1912, the provisions of which are the same as Section 20 of Act XXXV of 1858 on which the learned Judge relies. The Land Acquisition Judge, therefore, has not jurisdiction to refuse to pay out the particular sum directed by the District Judge to be applied by the petitioner for the maintenance of the lunatic or his family. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute and the order complained of is set aside. There will be no order for costs as the Secretary of State leaves the matter in the hands of the Court and does not oppose....
Sarat Chandra Roy Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.545
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to have it declared that certain resumed chakran lands were chowkidari chakran lands of Mauza Bonpass of which he is the palnidar, and not the chakran lands of Mauza Haribati of which defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the patnidars. The question stated in its simplest form would appear to be one of parcel or no parcel, and as such should be purely a question of fact; but the learned Doctor who appeared for the appellant raised points of law upon the construction of certain sections and upon the question of necessity for notice under Section 21 of Regulation VII of 1822.2. It appears that in the year 1899 there was an enquiry made by a Commissioner, Mr. C.C. Mitra, with regard to the chowkidari chakran lands of Mauza Haribati. He found that the Roll Book of 1836 shows that there were 24 bighas 9 cottas and 8 chattaks of chakran lands in that mauza. But at the time of his enquiry the ckowkidars of Haribati were in enjoyment of...
Choudhury Bhagaban Mahapatra and anr. Vs. Palturam Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.749
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits, which were tried together. The first suit out of which Appeal No. 1108 of 1913 arises, was instituted by the landlords for rent at the rate of Rs. 48 odd. The second suit which has given rise to Appeal No. 1109 of 1913, was a suit brought by the tenants asking for a declaration that the rental was Rs. 14 and that the entry in the Record-of-Rights to the effect that the rental was Rs. 48 odd was incorrect. The landlords succeeded in both suits in the first Court. In appeal the learned District Judge has held that the rental is Rs. 14 as alleged by the tenants and not Rs. 48 odd as alleged by the landlords and has decided the two suits accordingly. The landlords now appeal to this Court.2. It appears that at the Orissa Settlement, the rental was recorded as Rs. 14 in or about the year 1897. In the year 1905, a proceeding was instituted in the Collectorate by the landlords asking for the creation of a rental of Rs. 48 odd with effect from the e...
Lalji Sahu and ors. and Vs. Shamlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.827
1. These appeals arise from decisions of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, dated the 31st March 1911, confirming decisions of the Deputy Collector of Hazaribagh.2. The facts of the cases are briefly these. The plaintiff sued two tenants for rent on the basis of a title as zerbharnadar in the lands in suit. The zerbharna was granted by one of those mokarari holders whose original lease was word for word in the form dealt with in the Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 2 to 16 of 1914. The mokararidar died fifteen years before the institution of the suits. The suits are for rent of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. The plaintiff claims to have purchased at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree the interest of the zerbharnadar on the 3rd August 1906. His title is, therefore, the title vesting in the zerbharnadar holding under the heirs of the original mokararidar after that mokararidar's death.3. The lower Courts agreed in decreeing the suits on the ground that though the grant to the mo...
Kailas Chandra Aich and anr. Vs. Romesh Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.355
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly stated as follows: Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were occupancy tenants in respect of. 10 bighas of land. (sic) rights in that part of the country are not transferable by custom. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 sold their occupancy rights to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in 1910. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 attempted to obtain recognition of the landlord but failed. Then on the 3rd February 1912 the plaintiffs took a miras-ijara of the 10 bighas of land. The landlord stated that he had not been informed when the original tenants had sold their rights and that the purchaser had not taken any settlement from him. On the 23rd February 1912, this suit was brought against the purchasers for ejectment on the ground that the holding had been abandoned by the original tenants. Three days after that, that is on the 26th of February 1912, there was a deed of release executed by the purchasers in favour of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were broug...
Tikait Krishna Prosad Singh Vs. Babu Mati Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.699
1. This appeal is against an order, overruling an objection on the ground of limitation, made by a judgment-debtor to the execution of a portion of a decree. The decree was obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares on the 27th November 1900 for Rs. 6,599-9-6. The decree was transmitted for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh. An application was made to the latter Court for the attachment and pale of a certain property, named Gadi Gandey, in execution of the decree. This application was made on the 19th of May 1903. The property was accordingly attached and brought to sale on the 2nd of January 1904. It was purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 2,020. The judgment debtor then applied to have the sale set aside and, upon his application, the sale was set aside on the 16th February 1906. The decree-holder appealed to this Court. The order setting aside the sale was reversed and the sale confirmed, on the 18th May 190S. The judgment-debtor thereup...
Manmatha Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Sreemati Krishna Pramada Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.906
1. We do not think that this is a case for interference of this Court. The defendants themselves asked for a remand when the plaint was allowed to be amended, and as was pointed out by this Court in the case of Peary Mohan Mukherjee v. Narendra Krishna Mukherjee (1), the Law Reports show many cases in which amendments have been allowed by the Appellate Court and suits have been sent back for re-trial on amendment of the plaint even under the old Code. In the present Code of Civil Procedure we may observe, firstly, that Section 564 has been omitted, and whatever might have been the view taken in a recent case, Nabin Chandra Tripati v. Pran Krishna Dey 20 Ind. CAS. 39; 18 C.L.J. 613; 41 C. 108, that opinion is contrary to the case of Zohra Bibi v. Zabeda Khatoon 7 Ind. Cas. 75; 12 C.L.J. 368, and the learned Judges did not act upon their own opinion but treated the mistake of the Subordinate Judge as a mere irregularity under Section 99 of the Code and held that the merits of the case we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »