Kolkata Court December 1919 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.
Sunder Khan Vs. Meajan Chaprashi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.234
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of the land in dispute on declaration of the plaintiff's mirash karsha rights to the same by purchase from the heirs of one Madan Gazi.2. Various defences were raised by the defendant, one of them being that the plaintiff's purchase in respect of the shares of the minor daughters of Madan Gazi from their mother was void as she was not properly appointed guardian of the minors. That question was decided against the defendant in the Court below, and the plaintiff was given a decree in respect of the shares of the widow and the three daughters of Madan including the two minor daughters.3. Several contentions have been raised in this second appeal on behalf of the defendant-appellant. We do not think that there is anything in those contentions except that relating to the question of the validity of the sale of the minors' shares by their mother.4. Madan Gazi left a widow, one son and three daughters, two of whom were minors. The plaintiff ...
Nilkanta Ghose Vs. Swarnamoyee Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.726
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justine Greaves. I think, I may say at once that the judgment, judging from the terms of it, must have been given under some misapprehension, because the learned Judge seems to have bean under the impression that there was an order dismissing the plaintiff's suit. He says in the first paragraph of his judgment: 'This is an application that the Receiver may be substituted as plaintiff in the records of the suit and that the order dismissing the suit and the decree dated the 23rd May 1919 may be set aside except as relates to the direction as to payment of the costs of Babu Pannalal Day and that the suit may be restored.' Later on, towards the end of his judgment he says again: 'The suit has, however, already been dismissed and although I accept Nilkanta Ghose's statement that he did not know of the existence of the suit until after the decree' and so on. I do not think it is the learned Judge's faul...
Toremull Dilsook Roy Vs. Kunj Lall Manohar Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.766
1. This is an appeal from an interlocutory order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves. An application was made on behalf of the defendants that a commission should issue for the examination of two gentlemen whose evidence the defendants desired to place before the Court. The learned Judge refused the application. In our judgment, there is no appeal from this order: it is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. I think it is right to add that we would have dismissed the appeal on the merits, because the applicant has not put materials before the Court sufficient to satisfy us that the presence at the trial of these gentlemen cannot be obtained by the defendants.2. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs....
G.M. Birla and Co. Vs. Johurmull Premsukh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.817
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The learned Judge has granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the arbitration proceedings in this case.2. The learned Judge relied upon several grounds in his judgment, hut the learned Counsel appearing in this Court for the plaintiff-respondent has said that he can support one of these grounds only, which was as follows (page 30, line 25): 'It was held in Gajanand Mashara v. Shaik Taleb Jalaluddin 46 Ind. Cas. 173 : 22 C.W.N. 535 that in a case where the plaintiff was impeaching the contract on the ground of fraud, it was quite right to stay the arbitration proceedings.' That is the only ground on which the learned Counsel has endeavoured to support the learned Judge's judgment-he has not argued the points which were urged in the other case and to which I drew attention in my previous judgment.3. The question 13 whether the plaintiffs in this suit can be said to be impeaching the contract upon an equitable ground, such as that the plaintiffs were ind...
Joylal and Co. Vs. Gopiram Bhotica
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.778
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chaudhuri by which he made absolute a Rule calling upon the defendants, Joylal & Co., to show cause why an injunction should not be granted restraining them, until the final disposal of the suit or further order of the Court, from further proceeding with the arbitration proceedings in respect of contract No. 13,700, dated the 6th day of December 1917. It appears that on the above-mentioned date the defendants had entered into a contract with the plaintiff. It was in the form of a sold note and was addressed to the plaintiff Gopiram Bhotica and was as follows: 'We have this day sold by your order and on your account to our principals 1,50,000 yards Hessian cloths' of a description and quality therein stated. It was signed by the defendants as 'Brokers.' Delivery was to be January to March 1918, 50,000 yards monthly. The contract contained a Clause 12, which ran as follows:Any dispute whatsoe...
Maulvi AptapuddIn (AftabuddIn in Takalatnama) Ahmed and ors. Vs. Jogen ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.231
App. No. 319 of 1918.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the application for execution of the decree is barred by limitation.2. It is unnecessary to refer to the first two applications for execution. The third application was made on the 26th March 1912, and the 4th on the 26th March 1915.3. It appears that the judgment-debtor died before the fourth application for execution. The decree-holder prayed in that application that the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor might be substituted in his place, after issue of notice to them, and that the decretal amount be realised by attachment of moveables. The Court thereupon made an order that process-fee be paid within three days for service of notice on the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The fee, however, was not paid and the execution case was dismissed on the 30th March 1915.4. The present application for execution was made on the 16th February 1917, and the question is whether t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›