Kolkata Court January 1921 Judgments
Gouri Sankar Agarwalla Vs. H.P. Moitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal509,70Ind.Cas.379
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I have read the judgment; about be delivered by my learned brother Mr. Justice Richatdson.2. In my judgment the events that have been referred to in detail by my learned brother were not in the contemplation of the parties to the contract when the contract was made. It was made on the 21st January 1914, it was headed shipment and/or arrival: the goods were to be shipped in July and August 1914. In fact, the goods in question were shipped on Sections 'Spitzfels' a German ship which sailed from Hamburg on the 19th of July 1914 but they did not arrive in Calcutta until June 1916, more than two years from the date of the contract. This was due to the outbreak of war in August 1914 and to the capture of the Sections 'Spitzfels.' The goods were transhipped to Sections 'Alavi' under the circumstances detailed in my learned brother's judgment.3. In my judgment, the arrival of the goods in June 1916 after the events that happened was not such an arrival as was contemp...
Tag this Judgment!Deoki Sha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal537,62Ind.Cas.876
1. In this case it appears that at the Sealdah Railway Station these is a special siding for fish trains and a special delivery shed for the consignments of fish. In proper coarse the consignees or dealer in 6th should at once remove their good, but in practise it appeals they sell or dispose of the fish to customers within the delivery shed and its precincts. In other words, they have converted the shed and what is spoken of as its 'yard' into an unlicensed market. By a notice displayed on a notice board within this shed, the Railway Authorities have expressly authorised buying and selling within their premises in so far as transactions in quantities of 20 seers or 2 dozen and over are concerned. The notice which has been made Exhibit 5 in the case is dated 4th February 1915 and appears to be a reproduction of some earlier notice. The propriety of this recognition by the Railway Authorities of these so-called wholesale transactions is open to serious question, but not so their prohibi...
Tag this Judgment!Biswambhar Roy Basia and ors. Vs. Aminuddi Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.63
Teunon, J.1. This Rule arises out of certain proceedings taken under the provision of Section 146 of the Criminal procedure statements and adducing evidence on the 16th of November. On the 16th the prayer of the petitioners for an adjournment rejected and after the examination of one Witness for the first party, a final order was made in their favour.2. The case of the first party is that their first member, one Aminuddin, had purchased the superior interest in execution of decree and that, after annulment of encumbrances in the manner provided in Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act his bargadars, he remaining members of the fir f party, are in khas possession.3. The case of the petitioner second party is that the plots in question include their home stead and cultivated lands; that they are occupancy raiyats that; their status cannot be affected by proceedings if they under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that we have remained and are in possession.4. In order to enable t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Kamil and ors. Vs. Haji Hedayatulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.861
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for dissolution of partnership, for appointment of a Receiver and for incidental reliefs. The partnership business was carried on by Fazil and Hedayatulla. Fazil died on the 3rd August 1915. leaving the plaintiffs as his representatives, who commenced the present litigation on the 13th September 1916, with a view to take the partnership accounts. The District Judge has made a decree for dissolution and has directed the accounts to be taken from the 11th October 1913 to the 3rd August 1915, inasmuah as the accounts had been settled up to the 10th October 1913. He has, however, omitted to give directions as to the profits which may have resulted from the business subsequent to the death of Fazil, and this raises the real point in controversy in the present appeal.2. We are of opinion that there is no room for doubt or discussion that the partnership was dissolved by the death of Fazil on the 3rd August 1915, by virtue ...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Sen Vs. Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal340,64Ind.Cas.577
John Woodroffe, J.1. The plaint seeks for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to acquire the land in suit and for an injunction. By a notification of the 16th February 1915 the Government declared that a portion of the premises No. 147, Russa Road, amounting to 1 bigha 16 cottahs and 3 chattaks was required for public purposes, namely, a street scheme framed by the defendants as Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. No notice was given under Section 9 of the Land; Acquisition Act for two years. Meanwhile a question arose in two other cases whether the compulsory acquisition of surplus land for the purpose of recoupment was authorised by the Calcutta Improvement Act. In a case decided in July 1916 before Greaves, J., the question was answered in the affirmative. In the following month the High Court (Mookerjee and Cuming, JJ.) held to the contrary, namely, that recoupment was not one of the purposes of the Act, This decision, until reversed, was, binding on the Collec...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ganendra Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal536,67Ind.Cas.18
1. The petitioners is this case are the Trustees of a debutter estate. Some lands belonging to the estate have been acquired for the Calcutta Improvement Trust and a sum of Rs. 2,24,000 and odd is in deposit with the President of the Tribunal. The petitioners applied to the President for payment to them of the amount so deposited in order that they might erect buildings on the exempted portion of the land. The President refused to pay the money and this Rule was obtained to set aside that order.2. It appears that only a portion of premises Nos. 79 and 80 Collotollah Street has been acquired and the remaining portion is in the occupation of certain lessees. The term of the lease has not yet expired, It is stated that the lessees have entered into an agreement with the petitioners under which they would pay net profits to the extent of 7 and 7 1/2 per cent. in addition to the existing rents provided buildings are erected on the exempted land by the petitioners, and that plans of such bui...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Turf Club Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal44,66Ind.Cas.473
Sanderson, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to this Court by the Board of Revenue, as the Chief Revenue Authority, is whether the Royal Calcutta Turf Club is liable to excess-profits duty under the Excess Profits Duty Act of 1919. The case was stated at the instance of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club and it is as follows---'in this case, an application has been made by the Secretary of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club, on behalf of the Club, to the Board of Revenue, as the Chief Revenue Authority, under seat ion 51 (1912) 2 K. B. 177 : 81 L. J. K. B. 581 : 106 L. T. 573 : 28 T. L. R. 252 : 6 Tax. Cas. 48, of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918, which has been made applicable to excess profits duty by Section 15 of the Excess Profits Duty Act, 1919, with the modifications prescribed by Rule 31 of the Excess Profits Duty Rule?, 1919, for a case to be stated on the question whether the Club is liable to excess-profits duty. It appears from the Collector's record that the Club was assessed...
Tag this Judgment!Sewratan Vs. Kristo Mohan Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal320,66Ind.Cas.481
1. This suit appeared on the Spatial Board sometime in December last. When the nit was called on, the defendants intended that the unit was dead by virtue of an order passed on the 10th April 1919. That order has never been drawn up. Bat it appears from the Minute Book that the order was made in these terms:---'Adjourned till 1st June; Rs. 200 as condition precedent to be paid before 1st June If the money was not paid by 1st June the suit will be dismissed with costs.' The money was not, in fast paid in by the 1st June, and has not been paid up to this day. On the 4th June, Mr. Mandal Attorney for some of the parties, wrote a letter to the plaintiff with regard to The drawing up of the order for dismissal. On the 25th June the case came on, and another case in which a similar order had been made, and n which on the 25th an order for dismissal was made. On the 21st June one of the plaintiffs had died and on the 25th the case was ordered to go out of the list for substitution to be made,...
Tag this Judgment!Baijuntha Nath Chowdhury and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Represen ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.923
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree was made on the 15th January 1920 and the appeal now before us was lodged in this Court on the 21st April 1920. It appears that, though in the interval, the final decree had been made on the 16th March 1920, the appeal is directed only against the preliminary decree and Dot against the final decree. In these circumstances, an objection has been taken by the respondent that the appeal is incompetent, on the authority of the decision in Mackenzie v. Lala Narsing Sahai 1 Ind. Cas. 510 : 18 C.L.J. 223; This preliminary objection is manifestly well founded on principle, for if we were now to reverse the preliminary decree at the instance of the appellant, the final decree would still remain unaffected, as no attempt has been made to challenge the propriety of that decree. But our attention has been drawn by the appellants to the ease of Khirodatraye Dasi v. Adhar Chandra Ghose 21 Ind. Cas. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dekhari Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Assam-bengal Railway Co., Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal239,66Ind.Cas.469
Rankin, J.1. In this case the question arises as to the proper principles upon which the damages have to be calculated.2. The action was fried before me a considerable time ago and I held the second defendant Company to be liable to the f plaintiffs on the ground of negligence and under the provisions of the Indian Carriers Act. The plaintiff Company are incorporated in England and the question arises with regard to 96 packages of tea out of a total consignment of 343. The tea was being carried by the defendant Company to Chittagong and the plain purpose of its carrying was that it might be shipped from Chittagong to England and sold there. I am relieved of having to consider any disputed fact as to whether there is or is not a market for tea at Chittagong. If there was it may well be that the measure of damages would have to ba assessed according to the rates prevailing in that market. But Mr. Roy for the defendants has relieved me of much unnecessary trouble by pointing out that, upo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »