Kolkata Court July 1920 Judgments

Surendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Jogendra Nath Adhikari

Court: Kolkata

1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond. The learned judge in the Court of Appeal below has given the plaintiff simple interest at the rate provided for in the bond. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal to this Court asking for compound interest which is provided in the event of default, and on his behalf reliance is placed upon the two recent decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported as Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) and Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 905 : 124 P.R. 1918 : 25 M.L.T. 55 : 180 P.W.R. 1918 : 29 C.L.J. 165 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 25 : 21 Bom. L.R. 558 (P.C.) respectively. The learned Judge quotes those decisions and he says: 'These oases, however, were decisions with reference to the application of Section 16 of the Contract Act, and do not deal with the law relating to cases where Section 74 is applicable.'2. The learned Vakil...

Harising Nehal Chand Vs. Kankinarah Co., Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1921Cal45,66Ind.Cas.389

Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Rankin in the matter of an application to get aside an award.2. On the 28th August 1919 the appellants agreed to sell to the respondents 5,000 bales of jute of what has been tailed the, Narainganj mark. The contract contained an arbitration clause in the following terms:Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be referred to tin arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce whose decision shall be accepted as final and binding on bath parites to this contrast.'3. The case for the appellants is that, between the 1st and 30th September 1919, they delivered to the buyers 2,494 bales of jute of the contract mark assortment and quality, which were received by them. The buyers were apparently not satisfied with the quality of the jute and on the 11th September 1919 referred the matter to the arbitrators without any notice to the plaintiff. On the 17th September 1919, the Registrar of the Arbitration ...

Kadir Buksha Mia Vs. Raichernessa Shahebani and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.766

1. This is a suit for accounts brought by the owners of a three-quarters anna share in a certain Zemindari against the owners of a 2 1/2 annas share. The other co-sharers who have an interest of 12 3/4 annas were not parties to the suit. In November 1909, there was an arrangement amongst all the co sharers by means of a registered instrument, whereby it was agreed that the defendant should manage the property of his co-sharers.2. The plaintiffs have sued for accounts on the basis of that document.3. The principal point taken in this appeal is that the other co-sharers ought to have been made parties, on the principle that where an agent has to account to more than one principal, they must all sue, and that he is not liable to render separate accounts in separate suits to each of his principals to whom jointly he is accountable. This proposition, I think, is sound. The learned Vakil for the plaintiffs relies upon the terms of the document, the material portions of which are stated in pa...

Bali Debya Vs. Kariman Halvai and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.750

1. This appeal arises out of, suit brought by the plaintiff to recover room the present holders of certain properties he arrears of annuity said to be due to him, The suit has been decreed except as to a Kition found to be barred by limitation in 30th the Courts below, The annuity in question is a legacy made under the Will ) one Chandrabali Dabya; and the questions urged before uh arc, first, that this annuity is not a perpetual annuity as held by the Courts below but limited to the, lifetime of the son of the testatrix who died unmarried; secondly, that it does not constitution a charge upon the property, and, thirdly, that the provisions as to perpetual annuity offend against the provisions of Section 101 of the Indian Succession Act. No doubt, as has been pointed out by the learned Subordinate Judge, there is a reference in the Will to payment by the son of Chandrabali Debya ; but that specific reference cannot be taken to limit in any way the generality of the operative words of t...