Skip to content

Kolkata Court February 1925 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.

Feb 03 1925

Dayton Price and Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Rohomotollah and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Feb-03-1925

Reported in: AIR1925Cal609

Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson.2. The learned Judge disposed of several of the Defendants' contentions in favour of the plaintiffs, but he decided that the clause in the contract ' F.O.B. New York ' was a condition and inasmuch as it had not been performed, he dismissed the Plaintiffs' suits.3. The material facts are as follows:-The Defendants carried on business in Calcutta, the Plaintiffs in New York and Messrs. A. Stein & Co., in Chicago. The Defendants placed an order with the Plaintiffs through their agent in Calcutta. Messrs. Muller and Phipps.4. The order is as follows:Please ship the following goods on our account and risk drawing on us against the invoice amount at 60 days' sight: documents on payment. We agree to accept and pay your draft on or before maturity interest as usual. Buying Commission 2.''Ship to 58/1, Canning Street, Calcutta, Invoice to Messrs. S. Rohomotollah & Co.'Draw on Mes...


Feb 03 1925

Satindra Mohan Tagore Vs. Kamaraddi Miji

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Feb-03-1925

Reported in: AIR1925Cal1133

Suhrawardy, J.1. The one substantial question raised in this appeal is whether a particular stipulation in the kabuliyat rebuts the presumption of fixity of rent raised under Section 50, Bengal Tenancy Act. The Courts below have found that the defendant has succeeded in proving uniform payment of rent for more than 20 years, that the kabuliyat executed in 1868 was a confirmatory settlement of the holding held by the predecessors of the defendant from before at a uniform rent of Rs. 65, that since the execution of the kabuliyat there has been no variation in the rent and that, therefore, this kabuliyut or the stipulation contained in it did not affect the presumption raised under Section 50, Bengal Tenancy Act. The kabuliyat recites that the jama was held by the tenant from before at a rent of Rs. 65 and the settlement was taken from the landlord in respect of the land covered by the kabuliyat at the same jama of Rs. 65. Then there is a stipulation to the effect that if in future on mea...


Feb 02 1925

In Re: Bhubaneshwar Trigunait, Deceased

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Feb-02-1925

Reported in: AIR1925Cal627a,94Ind.Cas.986

C.C. Ghose, J.2. The application cannot be granted as there is no compliance with Section 19(1) of Court Fees Act....


Feb 02 1925

Sheikh Piru Vs. King-emperor

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Feb-02-1925

Reported in: AIR1925Cal616

Cuming, J.1. I agree with the order which my learned brother proposes to pass and desire to add some word of my own because I have noticed a tendency of late to abuse the provisions of Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code and to use it in a manner in which it was never intended to be used.2. Any one acquainted with Calcutta is aware that there is a large floating population mostly of the coolie class. These people have no place of abode. They spend the night in verandahs and doorways and eat where they can. Daring the day they work as coolies. For such people to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that they have work is well nigh impossible. The only people who could give any evidence on the point are probably not known to the person proceeded against for they are possibly employed by several persons in one day as casual labourers whose name and residence is unknown to them and who certainly would not remember they had employed them.3. They may be working quite honestly but it is ve...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial