Mumbai Court June 1908 Judgments
Debendra Nath Dutt Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR648
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal.2. The appellant, Debendra Nath Dutt, was one of two sureties in a bond conditioned for the due administration by Ernest Hard-wicke Cowie, a solicitor in Calcutta, of the estate of a retired Indian civil servant named Craster. Mr. Craster died in England in August 1898, leaving a will which was duly proved here in the following month of October. Part of the deceased's estate consisted of shares in the Bank of Bengal and other Indian assets. The Indian assets escaped the notice of the executors and remained unclaimed and outstanding. On the 29th of July 1902. Cowie, who is stated in the printed cases to have been one of the solicitors to the Government, and who certainly was then in good credit, obtained an order for the grant of letters of administration to himself as attorney for a fictitious person represented by him to be the only son and sole next-of-kin of the deceased, who had, as he pr...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Bombay Vs. Sulleman Somji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR636
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 22nd January 1907, pronounced by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (sitting in appeal from its Original Civil Jurisdiction) by which a decree, dated the 6th August 1906, of the High Court (sitting in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) was reversed and set aside. By this latter decree the respondent's action was dismissed with costs.2. The respondent is a holder of one share in the appellant Company, the Bank of Bombay, one of the Banks incorporated in 1876, by the Indian Statute of that year entitled the Presidency Banks Act, 1876.3. It was suggested that the respondent purchased this share for the purpose of causing annoyance to the Bank owing to the fact that some other litigation to which he was a party had been instituted against the Bank and was still pending. There was no satisfactory evidence given to sustain this allegation.4. From the correspondence which took place between the respondent and the Bank before...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›