Kolkata Court August 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.
Surendralal Chowdhury and Satish Chandra Chowdhury Vs. the Secretary o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.263
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the recovery of value of goods made over to a Railway Administration for transmission but not delivered at the destination. The case for the plaintiff is that the Secretary of State for India in Council owns the Eastern Bengal State Railway, that on the 12th October 1909 the plaintiff made over to the Railway authorities at Rungpur 250 bundles of tobacco, worth Rs. 15,335, for despatch and carriage to Calcutta, but that the goods have never been delivered to him. The defendant pleaded in substance that the goods were destroyed while in course of transmission on the 17th October 1909 by an act of God, namely, a severe cyclone, and that he is consequently not liable for the value of the goods. The Subordinate Judge has held that the loss of the goods was caused by an act of God beyond the control of the defendant, and that this furnishes a complete answer to the claim. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court and has invited us |p h...
Monmotho Nath Mitra Vs. District Judge, 24-perganas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.368
1. This Rule raises an important question of first impression as to the true effect of Section 3 of Act VIII of 1865 B.C. upon the second Clause of Section 15 of Regulation VIII of 1819. The clause in question describes the procedure to be followed in case of opposition to the new purchaser of the putni, when he proceeds to take possession of the land covered by his purchase. The clause lays down that if the late incumbent himself or the holders of tenures or assignments derived from the late incumbent and intermediate between him and the actual cultivators shall attempt to offer opposition or to interfere with the collections of the new purchaser from the land composing his purchase, the latter shall be at liberty to apply immediately to the Civil Court for the aid of the public officers in obtaining possession of his rights. Section 3 of Act VIII of 1865 B.C. provides that the sale for the recovery of arrears of rent of putni taluks and other saleable under-tenures of the nature denn...
Fakir Mullilck and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.671
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the orders under Sections 139(1) and 140(l), Code of Criminal Procedure, complained of in the petition should not be set 'aside or why such other order should not be passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit and proper on grounds Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the petition. The proceedings with which we are concerned in this case are proceedings taken under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Uluberia proceeded to enquire on a complaint that public rights bad been interfered with and he came to the conclusion that the channel was, in fact, a public channel. Mr. Mukherjee, who appears for the petitioners in this case, says that, having regard to the rulings of this Court, the Magistrate ought to have first enquired whether his clients had a bona fide claim of right to the channel; and, if he found that they had, then he should have referred t...
Dwarka Nath Ash Vs. Priya Nath Malki and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.792
1. The decision of this Rule turns upon an interesting point of law, involved in the question whether or rot the third defendant was liable for the debt due to the plaintiff from the first two defendants. It appears that the first two defendants borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiff on a promissory note executed on the 6th January 1913 They transferred their properties to the third defendant on the 31st January 1913 and on that very date the third defendant executed an agreement in favour of his vendors expressly undertaking to pay to the plaintiff his dues out of the consideration money retained in his hands. The plaintiff instituted this suit on the 4th January 1916 against his debtors as also the third defendant. The Small Cause Court Judge has degreed the suit against all the defendants.2. On behalf of the third defendant it is urged in this Court that there was an interpolation in the deed of agreement executed by him and that in fact the recital as to the debt due to the pla...
Harendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Debendra Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1916
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.558
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage.2. The amount advanced on the mortgage (on the 31st Bhadra 1304) was Rs. 700. The interest agreed upon to be paid was at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum with annual rests. In Sraban 1305 the mortgagors paid Rs. 300, which satisfied tie interest up to that date and reduced the mortgage debt by Rs. 210; some further payments were subsequently made, and the debt of Rs. 489 and odd, which was due in August 1898, swelled to Rs, 4,727 at the date of the suit.3. The Court below has disallowed compound interest, and has given a decree for simple interest at 15 per cent. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.4. It is not found that the contract to pay compound interest was brought about by any undue influence on the part of the creditors or that they had unduly taken advantage of their position in the matter. The Court below has disallowed compound interest, mainly on the ground that the mortgagors did not realise that the interest wou...
Jogendra Mohan Das and anr. Vs. Janaki Nath Saha and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.795
1. The appellants before us are landlords, who applied under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair and equitable rents in respect of lands held by tenant-respondents. Three such applications were tried together in the first Court One of the cases Was compromised in the lower Appellate Court The other two cases have come before us in second appeal. As the principal point which arises is the same in both we shall follow the course which has been adopted in the Courts below and deliver only one judgment.2. The tenant respondents are entered in the Record of Rights as tenure-holders. The landlords disputed the correctness of these entries and asserted that the tenants were raiyats and liable to pay rent as such. Upon this question an issue was raised which prima facie was triable in these proceedings under the provisions of Section 105 A, Clause (e). The Revenue Officer refused to try this issue on the ground that for that purpose the under-tenant, or the sub ten...
Dwijendra Nath Roy Chaudhuri and anr. Vs. Aftabuddi Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.209
1. These 99 appeals arise out of as many suits, instituted under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, originally before a Revenue officer, but, under the first proviso to that section, subsequently transferred to the Civil Court. The plaintiffs seek relief in respect of alleged omissions made by the Settlement Officer in the Record of Rights finally published on the 16th April 1909.2. The lands in dispute are comprised in Dihi Bhadra, Purgana Buran, an estate bearing Tauzi No. 132 on the revenue roll of the Collector of Khulna. The Mitters and the Lahas are each entitled to a four-annas share in the estate. The remaining eight-annas share was originally vested in the Roy Chowdhuries of Satkhira; the plaintiffs, who represent one branch of that family, are now entitled to a three-annas share, and, some of the defendants, who represent the other branch of the family, are entitled to the residue of five-annas share. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that though they are thus admittedly...
Kali Kanta Chuckerbutty Vs. Shyam Lal Das Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.598
Richardson, J.1. This is a Rule by which the opposite party was called upon to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Backergunge, dated the 11th March 1916 should not be set aside. The order was made in the following circumstances:In execution of a decree for rent passed on the 29th June 1914, the holding in arrears was sold on the 9th March 1915. The judgment-debtor then applied under Order XXI, Rule 90, to have the sale set aside. After some adjournments, the learned Munsif in the first Court, on the 29th May 1915, directed that the case should come on for final hearing on the 19th June 1915, and seated that no further adjournment would be granted. On the 19th June 1915, the judgment debtor did not appear and the application to have the sale set aside, was, therefor, dismissed for default. From that order the judgment debtor appealed to the District Judge and the District Judge, upon the appeal, made the order complained of. 2. In support of the Rule obtained by the aucti...
Jadu Kanta Sarma and anr. Vs. Hema Kanta Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.624
1. This is an appeal from an order dated the 17th September 1915 made by the Subordinate Judge of Tezpur. By this order the learned Subordinate Judge refused to set aside an ex parte decree which he had made upon an appeal preferred by the opposite party. It appears that in the notices of the appeal served upon the two petitioners the date on which the appeal was to be heard was not specified. Rule 14 of Order XLI requires that the date fixed for the hearing of an appeal should be specified in the notice served on the respondents.2. In our opinion the learned Subordinate (Judge) was wrong in refusing to set aside the ex parte decree and re-hear the appeal. We must accordingly set aside the order appealed from and direct that the appeal be re-heard in due course of law. The costs, including the hearing fee which we assess at one gold mohur, will abide the result....
Asutosh Goswami and ors. Vs. Upendra Prosad Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.17
1. This appeal is directed against an order for restitution. The facts material for the determination of the questions in controversy are not in dispute and may be briefly set out. On the 11th December 1899 the appellants, members of a family of Goswamis, obtained a decree for money against a large number of defendants, members of a family of Mitras. Execution was taken out from time to time, but practically to no purpose. On the 6th January 1909 an application for execution was made, more than three years after the date of the previous application. Objection was thereupon taken on the 3rd February 1909 by the judgment-debtors that the application was barred by limitation. This objection was registered and numbered as a separate proceeding, and was overruled on the 5th August 1909. Five of the judgment-debtors then appealed to this Court on the 10th May 1910. The appeal was decreed on the 9th January 1914 as regards four of the appellants and was dismissed as regards the other. This Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »