Kolkata Court May 1918 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.
Raja Narendra Lal Khan Vs. Manmotha Ranjan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1000(1),47Ind.Cas.197
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 28th August 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff sued for damages for breach of a contract with reference to the sale of timber growing on certain jungle, the property of the plaintiff. The facts as found are perfectly simple, namely, that the defendants out and removed the timber growing on certain portions of the jungle and that they had paid in advance in excess of the value of the timber so removed. Under the terms provided for by the contract, the plaintiff now wants damages from the defendants. There seem to be two answers to the plaintiff's contention. The first answer is that apparently the plaintiff himself was in default under the contract in not having agreed to have a measurement. If that was so, of course, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in respect of a contract, that he committed a breach of. The second answ...
Rustomjee Dhanjibhai Sethna Vs. Frederic Gaebele
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal352
Greaves, J.1. Was no leave obtained in Bombay2. Mr. Langford James. I am instructed that he has got leave. He has got the ordinary powers of a Receiver.Greaves, J.3. I would like to see the Bombay order.4. Adjourned till the 17th May. On 20th May Mr. Langford James filed certified copies of two orders, dated the 30th April 1918, appointing Mr. Sethna, the Receiver, and 15th May 1918 granting leave to Mr. Sethna to file a suit against Mr. K.S. Bonnerjee.5. Mr. Jackson. The order of 15th May is the result of an adjournment. He did not have leave before that.6. A suit against a Receiver without leave should be dismissed. Such a leave is jurisdictional. It is a settled practice of this Court that a Receiver should take leave before suit: Pramatha Nath Gangooly v. Khetra Nath Banerjee (1904) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 270. Dunne v. Kumar Chandra Kisore (1902) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 593.7. Mr. B.L. Mitter, for the defendant, K.S. Bonnerjee.8. Mr. Landford James. The plaintiff can get leave at any time: Gowar ...
Santok Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal432
Chitty and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the two accused, Santok Chand and Anup Chand, for revision of an order of Mr. A.T. Mukerjee, lately Fifth Presidency Magistrate, whereby he convicted them of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to one day's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The facts appear to be as follows: The first accused Santok Chand is a partner and (so far as this case is concerned) the sole representative in Calcutta of the firm of Koramal Santok Chand. The second accused Anup Chand is the munib gomasta of that firm. The firm acted as araldars for another Marwari firm, Meghraj Sugan Chand, in which the complainant Sugan Chand Munawat is a partner. Meghraj Sugan Chand owed money to Koramal Santok Chand, and demands were made for payment. Meghraj Sugan Chand agreed to consign certain jute to Koramal Santok Chand, towards satisfaction of the debt, but in breach of that agreement they consigne...
Rustomjee Dhunjibhai Sethna Vs. Frederic Gaebele and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.486
Rafique, J.1. On the 9th May last, I granted a Rule at the instance of the plaintiff, who is the Official Receiver of the Bombay High Court, calling on the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff should not take possession of a schooner called the 'Rabia Khatoon' at present lying in the Hooghly within the jurisdiction of this Court and why the defendant Krishna Shelly Bonnerjee, the Official Receiver of this Court, should not give up possession of the said vessel. The defendants now appear to show cause against this Rule.2. On the 17th April 1918 a firm of Benoderam Balchand commenced a suit on the Original Side of the High Court of Bombay against J.A. Grant and Co., asking (inter alia) for a declaration that two sums of Rs. 1,71,644.10.6 and Rs. 1,36,763 49 were due to them from the defendants, for payment to them of these sums and interest thereon at 9 per cent. per annum from the date of the suit until payment, and for a declaration that the repayment of these sums was validly ch...
Jagadish NaraIn Paramanik and ors. Vs. MahamuddIn Mahamed and ors. Min ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.529
1. This appeal must be dismissed. It is quite clear that the appellant in this case is not a representative of a party to the suit within the meaning of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. That being so, unless he can bring the case under that section, there is no second appeal against the order of the learned Munsif. Even if the case came under Section 47 the order refusing to set aside the sale being appealable under Section 104(1)(i), is outside the definition of a decree and the order passed on appeal from such an order is final under Sub-section (2) of Section 104. The petitioner who claimed that he had got an interest paramount to the interest of the judgment-debtor, the interest of the judgment-debtor being altogether destroyed, could not ask the sale to be set aside under these circumstances. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed will costs one gold mohur....
Santok Chand and anr. Vs. Sugan Chand Manawat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.836
1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the two accused Santok Chand and Anup Chand for revision of an order of Mr. A.T. Mukherjee, lately 5th Presidency Magistrate, whereby he convicted them of an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to one day's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The facts appear to be as follows: The 1st accused Santok Chand is a partner and (so far as this case is concerned) the sole representative in Calcutta of the firm of Koramal-Santok Chand. The 2nd accused Anup Chand is the Munim Gomastha of that firm. The firm acted as aratdars for another Marwari firm Meghraj Sugan Chand, in which the complainant Sugan Chand Munawat is a partner. Meghraj Sugan Chand owed money to Koramal-Santok Chand, and demands were made for payment. Meghraj Sugan Chand agreed to consign certain jute to Koramal-Santok Chand towards satisfaction of the debt, but in breach of that agreement they consigned the jute to another firm, Chogmal Hazar...
Lakshmi Prasanna Mojumdar Vs. Rajindra Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.831
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment debtor against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Noakhali, dated the 21st of June 1916. The point lies in a very narrow compass and it is this: The properties of the judgment debtor had been attached and were to be brought to sale on the 17th April 1916. On that date, the judgment-debtor put in a .petition to the Judge asking that the sale might be postponed and that it might take place on the next sale day without a fresh 'proclamation of sale and the attachment subsisting. The petition shows that the Court was not satisfied with that and required that the judgment-debtor should add a further undertaking to the petition, namely, that the judgment-debtor should not raise any objection on the ground of illegality or irregularity. That being added, the Court granted a postponement of the sale and the properties were not sold until the 16th May. Then the properties having been sold, the judgment-debtor preferred a petition on...
The Maharaja of Burdwan Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.305
Fletcher, J.1. The question involved in these appeals is whether the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Burdwan, is entitled to the Churs that form in the rivers Damodar and Darakeswar without liability of further assessment of Government revenue. The appeals which are preferred by the Secretary of State for India in Council have reference to the portion of the river which lies wholly within the limits of the permanently settled estate of the plaintiff on which the learned Judge in the Court below held that the Government were not entitled to assess further Government revenue. The appeals by the plaintiff refer to the portion of the river of which the plaintiff is the proprietor of the riparian Mouzas on one side of the river only. The learned Judge held with regard to these that by the rule of 'middle thread' the soil in one half of the river was vested in the plaintiff but that he was liable to assessment to further Government revenue in respect of Churs forming in the river. One of the main...
Kedar Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. Mohesh Chandra Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1025,46Ind.Cas.787
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 2nd September 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Assansole. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover possession of certain lands alleging that they were entitled to the same as permanent tenants. The case set up was that the property originally belonged to one Dharmadas Khan, that, on his death, it went to his widow, who died in February or March 1913, and that on her death the present plaintiffs who were the reversioners became entitled to it. The defendants Nos. 10 and 11 filed a written statement in which they alleged that neither Dharmadas Khan or his widow Bama Sunderi nor the plaintiff had anything to do with the lands at all and that their tenants, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had been in possession thereof for many years. They also alleged in their written statement that, as neither the plaintiffs nor their alleged predecessors-in-title ever...
Shib Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Harendra Lal Rai Chowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.315
George Woodroffe, J.1. The facts have been set out in the judgments of the learned Judges of this Court upon whose difference of opinion the matter has been referred to use as also in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. It is not necessary to repeat them in detail. The suit is by the plaintiff against six defendants. It was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge as against defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and decreed against the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. On appeal to this Court the learned Judges differed and as there was, therefore, no judgment concurring in, varying or reversing the decree appealed from, it was ordered that the decree of the Subordinate Judge be affirmed and the cross-appeals dismissed, each party paying his own costs. The ease has, therefore, been referred to us for decision under the Letters Patent.2. There are three appeals before us in which the defendants severally are appellants. In Appeal No. 9 of 1917 the 1st defendant is Appellant, in Appeal No. 8 of 1917 the 2nd and 3r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »