Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.491
..... itself was in possession of the premises in respect of which the prosecution was instituted. in another case mentioned by mr. ghosh, an advocate of this court was prosecuted under section 145, criminal procedure code, and prinsep and handley, jj., held that the prosecution did not lie without sanction. there the evidence was that the receiver was in possession of immoveable property in ..... where the receiver was prosecuted as owner and occupier of certain premises held as in the possession of the court, and the offence against him was under the calcutta municipal act that the premises were in a state dangerous or unfit for human habitation. in that case, it was rightly held that the receiver was not criminally responsible and the court ..... of this court or of any other civil court for the prosecution of a person, who happens to be a receiver appointed by the court, in respect of any criminal act committed during his tenure of such office, i do not agree. i make no order on this petition. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.825
..... secret title. the rule by which a transferee from an ostensible owner is allowed to protect himself against a claim by the real owner is embodied in section 41 of the transfer of property act, and has been repeatedly recognised by the judicial committee and the house of lords ramcoomar koondoo v. mcqueen 18 w.r. 166 : 11 b.l.r. 46 ..... . 675 : 41 l.t. 378 : 27 w.r. 879. a similar view is supported by well known text-writers (bigelow on estoppel, page 602; and herman on estoppel, volume 2, sections 1116-1121). the cases on the subject, however, specially in england, are difficult to reconcile and babman v. kingston (1880) l.r. 6 ir. 328; bartlett v. wells (1862) 1 ..... in support of the view that a false representation by an infant may create an estoppel against him. see also laws of england by lord halsbury, volume 13, section 537, note (s) and section 560, note (o). but it is not necessary to pursue the subject further or to decide for the purposes of this case whether, in a case of fraudulent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.996
..... is admittedly the private property of the petitioners landlords, under the control and administration of the district board for the purposes of the bengal local self-government act of 1885.3. under section 76 of that act, a district board may agree with the person in whom the property in any channel is vested to take over the property therein, and after such ..... the district fund. in this way only, so far as we can see, can a private channel be brought under the control and administration of a district board under the act.4. now, there is nothing on the record before us to show that there has been any such arrangement between the owners of this channel and the district board, and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal148
..... a case of the heirs of a promisor, and it might well be held that they had no several responsibility. but reading the kabuliyat in this case with section 43 of the contract act, we have no doubt at all that garth and wetherall were severally as well as jointly liable for the rent, and that, if the appellant had become ..... . in the first place, there is no ascertained price. in the second, it is clearly not a sale but a contract for sale, as defined in section 54 of the transfer of property act, 1882, which does not of itself create any interest in the property. it is, therefore, contended by learned counsel for the defendant appellant, on the authority ..... garth represented by the administrator-general, and babu ananda chandra roy. the suit has been dismissed as against the second defendant on the ground that no notice was served under section 80 of the code. it has been decreed against the other two, and the third defendant appeals.2. the first and principal point taken on his behalf is that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal687,24Ind.Cas.209
..... officers of the company on its behalf in a duly authorised manner, but because the company is estopped, so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, to repudiate the act of the managing director. under these circumstances, it has been urged on behalf of the company that the court, in its discretion, should refuse specific performance. ..... would clearly fail in a suit for rescission.4. as regards the second question, it is necessary to state that, as has now transpired, the managing director acted only in concurrence with the two secretaries and without the authority of the entire body of directors. while the negotiations with the plaintiffs were in progress, the tenants ..... before he settled the terms with them, had taken [the necessary antecedent steps under the constitution of the company. they would be entitled to presume that he had acted regularly within the scope of his authority and in the manner provided in the articles of association. bargate v. shortridge (1855) 5 h.l.c. 297 : 101 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR42Cal625
..... of redemption, neither of them would have been bound to give him any information, such as a vendor is under an obligation to furnish under section 55 of the transfer of property act, to an intending purchaser of his property. the mortgagee, therefore, was in reality a person who acquired title under an involuntary alienation by his mortgagor ..... arises, where, as here,' only a charge has been created by express words of the statute, and not a mortgage as in cases under section 13 of the patni regulation or section 171 of the bengal tenancy act. what, then, is the position? the consolidated rate, as it accrued, due, became a first charge upon the property, but no ..... hands of the appellants, must depend upon the nature and incidents of the charge. a charge is defined in section 100 of the transfer of property act in the following termswhere immoveable property of one person is, by act of parties or operation of law, made security, for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1915Cal793,30Ind.Cas.174
..... is that the sellers intended to retain and in fact did retain the property in the goods. this was a necessary reservation forth purpose of securing that method of commercial finance commonly employed by calcutta shippers.19. it will not he inappropriate to quote in support of this view certain remarks of mr. benjamin to be found in chapter vi, book ..... a subject are in greater peril than those of a neutral, but that is where the municipal law sanctions the confiscation of the property of a subject for his illegal acts, as where he contravenes the law which forbids to a subject commercial intercourse with the enemy. but no such ground of confiscation is suggested here.14. the conclusion then to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 28Ind.Cas.245
..... statement that fancy silk handkerchiefs of the value of rs. 138-2 as had been lost with the parcels. the defendants thereupon denied their liability, relying on section 75 of the railways act, ix of 1890, and schedule ii thereto annexed. the munsif and the subordinate judge in concurrence held that the defendants were not liable for the silk, ..... the plaintiffs must fail if scheduled goods of the value of over rs. 100 were in the parcel, and for this reason, that section 75 of the present act, differing in that respect from the former act, says that the railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel, and not of the articles ..... upon its own circumstances. where a court has adopted a fair test and where upon that test it has found that the article is silk within the meaning of the section, that is in our opinion a clear finding of fact and the court cannot go behind if; in second appeal. the subordinate judge, though he has said less .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1915)ILR42Cal888
..... statement that fancy silk handkerchiefs of the value of rs. 138-2 annas had been lost with the parcel. the defendants thereupon denied their liability relying on section 75 of the railways act, ix of 1890, and schedule ii thereto annexed. the munsif and the subordinate judge in concurrence held that the defendants were not liable for the silk ..... the plaintiffs must fail if scheduled goods of the value of over 100 rupees were in the parcel, and for this reason that section 75 of the present act, differing in that respect from the former act, says that the railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel and not of the articles ..... its own circumstances. where a court has adopted a fair test and where upon that test it has found that the article is silk within the meaning of the section, that is in our opinion a clear finding of fact and the court cannot go behind it in second appeal. the subordinate judge, though he has said less, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1915)ILR42Cal957
..... own witness with regard to the matters elicited by the defence in cross-examination. the answer to these questions must depend upon the provisions of the indian evidence act. section 138 is in these terms 'witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling ..... existence of the tin cases, discs, and clamps, or that they were acquainted with their nature and purpose. we hold accordingly that the charge under section 4 (&) of act vi of 1908 fails against each of these persons quite as much as the conspiracy charge. the result is in conformity with the well settled principle ..... the explosive substances for the preparation or possession whereof the alleged conspiracy was formed. we observe, however, that the charge does not follow the language of section 4 (b) of act vi of 1908, and uses the expression 'make and keep' explosive substances, while it omits the expressions 'unlawfully and maliciously,' and 'british india.' it .....
Tag this Judgment!