Kolkata Court April 1923 Judgments
S.K. Ghandy Vs. L.P.E. Pugh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal598,83Ind.Cas.376
1. This an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for damages. The plaintiff is a share-holder in the Hoogly Coal Company, Limited, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The first defendant, a share-holder of the company, was appointed its first director by the articles of association and has been a director thereof since its incorporation. The company has been joined as the second defendant. The circumstances which have given rise to the claim for damages may be briefly narrated.2. On the 23rd September, 1914, the first defendant obtained a lease for 999 years of coal land in Mouza Bon Bistupur held under proprietary right by one Sanjilal. The consideration was the payment of Rs. 30,000 as premium and royalties on; the working. On the 23rd June, 1915, the defendant company was incorporated to take over the Bon Bistupur concern from the first defendant on terms contained in a draft agreement. The capital was fixed at two and a half lacs of rupees covered by 50,000 shares of Rs. 5 eac...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Santa Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1923
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.769
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's right as a co-sharer shebait of the deity Ugra Tara at Shikarpur (District Backerganj), for a decree for recovery of possession of the said share jointly with the pro forma defendants according to the terms of worship, for an injunction, to restrain the principal defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs right and for other reliefs. The pro forma defendants are said to be the, co-sharer shebaits.2. The defence, among other things, was that the plaintiff has no right as a shebait of the deity installed in 1319, and that he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.3. The Court of first instance declared the plaintiff's right as a co-sharer shebait, gave a decree for possession of one-fifth share, but disallowed the claim for injunction and mesne profits. That decree was confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal below. The defendants have appealed to this Court.4. It appears that there is a shrine at Shikarpur in ...
Tag this Judgment!Vally Mohamad Haji Gunny Vs. Nederland S. Navigation Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal173
Page, J.1. This a suit which is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for damages for failure to deliver 879 baskets of hard molasses which the Defendants as common carriers had accepted for carriage, and had agreed to carry for the Plaintiff from Saurava in Java to be delivered to the Plaintiff at Calcutta. The goods were shipped under a bill of lading on the S.S. 'Manada,' and the steamship arrived in Calcutta on the 25th January 1920. Notice was given by letter by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on the 26th January 1920 that the goods were ready to be discharged. On the 26th the ship discharged certain goods on one of the quays at Calcutta. On the 27th she put out into the river, and her cargo was discharged there into lighters. The exact time which it took her to discharge the whole of her cargo is uncertain, but it was admittedly completed some considerable time before the 20th February 1920 when she left Calcutta.2. The Plaintiff issued his plaint on the 7th June 1921, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vally Mahomed Haji Gunny Vs. Nederland S. Navigation Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.612
Page, J.1. This is a suit which is brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages for failure to deliver 1879 baskets of hard molasses which the Defendants as common carriers had accepted for carriage, and bad agreed to carry for the plaintiff from Saurabya in Java to be delivered to the plaintiff at Calcutta. The goods were shipped under a bill of lading on the S.S. 'Manada,' and the steamship arrived in Calcutta on the 25th January 1920. Notice was given by letter by the defendants to the plaintiff on the 26th January 1920 that the goods were ready to be discharged. On the 26th the ship discharged certain goods on one of the quays Calcutta. On the 27th she put out into the river, and her cargo was discharged there into lighters. The exact time which it took her to discharge the whole of her cargo is uncertain, but it was admittedly completed some considerable time before the 20th February 1920 when she left Calcutta.2. The plaintiff issued his plaint on the 7th June 1921...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Sheikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal724,73Ind.Cas.773
Buckland, J.1. This application raises a novel point on which there does not appear to be any authority. The petitioners were put on their trial before the learned. Sessions Judge of Rajshahi and a Jury upon charges under Sections 436 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial began on the 28th February last and continued from day to day until the 6th March. On that day when 11 witnesses for the prosecution had been examined the learned Judge recorded in the order-sheet that it had come to his notice that some of the Jury had been seen associating with the man looking after the case for the accused. The learned Judge appears to have held some sort of enquiry the nature of which is not specified though I will assume it was sufficient and that he was reasonably satisfied as to the conclusion at which he arrived, and thereupon stated, that he had reason to believe this to be the case, and he consequently ordered the Jury to be discharged and the case to be tried de novo.2. These are a...
Tag this Judgment!Halfhide (Mr.) Vs. Halfhide (Mrs.)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal230
1. We think that this Rule must be made absolute. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows : - On the 20th January 1919, an order was made directing the petitioner before us to pay a sum of Rs. 45 a month as maintenance allowance to his wife, who is the opposite party. Several warrants were issued for realization of the money due from the husband, but they were returned unexecuted. In December 1921, the husband was arrested, and thereupon the dues up to April 1921 were paid. Subsequently a further sum was paid some time in June 1922. The opposite party alleged that the arrears now due amounted to a sum of Rs. 870, and she accordingly prayed for the issue of a warrant against her husband. An order was made, on the 8th of February 1923 for the issue of a warrant against the husband, and thereupon the husband appeared before the Third Presidency Magistrate, Mr. Das Gupta, on the 22nd February 1923, when he represented that he had no means whatsoever to pay the maintenance to his wife, an...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Halfhide Vs. Mrs. Halfhide
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.912
1. We think that this Rule must be made absolute. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: On the 20th January, 1919, an order was made directing the petitioner before us to pay a sum of Rs. 45 a month as maintenance allowance to his wife, who is the opposite party. Several warrants were issued for realization of the money due from the husband, but they were returned unexecuted. In December 1921, the husband was arrested, and thereupon the dues up to April, 1921, were paid. Subsequently a further sum was paid some time in June, 1922. The opposite party alleged that the arrears now due amounted to a sum of Rs. 870, and she accordingly prayed for the issue of a warrant against her husband. An order was made on the 8th of February, 1923, for the issue of a warrant against the husband, and thereupon the husband appeard before the Third Presidency Magistrate., Mr. Das Gupta, on the 22nd February, 1923, when he represented that he had no means whatsoever to pay the maintenance to his wife,...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Koer Vs. Rakhahari Mirsa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal96
1. This rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan and on the complainant to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him should not be set aside on the ground that a previous order of his acquittal, which had been passed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 8th August, 1922, not having been set aside by a competent authority, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try and convict the petitioner for the same offences in respect of which the order of acquittal had been passed.2. The facts which have given rise to the application, on which this Rule was issued, shortly stated, are as follows : The petitioner was summoned under Sections 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (both summons cases) to appear on 24th July, 1922. On that date a warrant was issued against the accused and the 8th August, 1922 was fixed for the next hearing of the case. On the 8th August the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the case wa...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Behari Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal215
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside on the ground that, on the facts alleged by the prosecution, no offence under Section 417 of the Penal Code, has been made out. We have heard Mr. Manmatha Nath Mookerjee in support of the Rule, and Mr. Orr on behalf of the Crown, and for the reasons given below, we are of opinion that Mr. Mookerjee's contention must prevail.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution, shortly stated, are as follows : - It is alleged that the accused sent to one Nobin Chunder Chowdhury an insured cover purporting to contain eight Government currency notes of Rs. 100 each. The envelope in question, it appears, was handed over by the accused in person to the Postmaster at the Nilambazar Post Office on the 16th November 1920. The cover was received at the Baliaghata Post Office on the 18th November, 1920, and was delivered to an agent...
Tag this Judgment!Bhowanidas Ramgobind Vs. Harasukhdas Balkishendas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal524
1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit to set aside an arbitration award made by the tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce.2. The contract contained an arbitration clause in the following terms:Any disputes to be settled by arbitration under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, or at the option of the sellers by the arbitration of two European Sugar Importers of Calcutta one to be appointed by the sellers and one by the buyers, with power to appoint a European Merchant as Umpire. The decision of the Chamber, Arbitrators or Umpire shall be final and binding on both parties, either of whom may make the same a rule or order of Court. If the buyers shall fail to join in such arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator within three days, after being required to do so, the arbitration may at the option of the sellers proceed ex parte, and the award thereon shall be binding on the buyers and the sellers may make the same a rule or o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »