Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Sorted by: old Court: kolkata Year: 1893 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.421 seconds)

Mar 08 1893 (PC)

Kameshar Prasad Vs. Bhikhan NaraIn Singh and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-08-1893

Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal609

Pigot, J.1. These appeals are from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya in each of two cases heard before him. Appeal 300 is brought in suit 88 of 1889, appeal 244 in suit 25 of 1889 in the Sub-Judge's Court.2. The suits are brought to enforce claims said to arise in virtue of a stipulation contained in a bharnanama or deed of usufructuary mortgage, dated the 10th Assin 1288 (29th September 1880), between Sir Jai Prakash Singh, K.C.S.I., then Raja of Deo, and his son, defendant No. 1, who is the present Raja, on the one part, and the plaintiff on the other. By that deed 83 mouzahs were given in bharna for nine years, up to Jeth 1296 (May 1889), to the plaintiff to secure the sum of Rs. 3,35,000, with interest at eight annas per centum per mensem.3. The mouzahs mortgaged, which are set out in the schedule to the deed, are described in the instrument as held in mokurrari and lease on annual uniform and varied rentals. The deed provides that the mortgagee shall remain ...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1893 (PC)

Azizan Vs. Matuk Lal Sahu

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-28-1893

Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal437

Macpherson, J.1. The plaintiff' is one of the heirs of Mahomed Saleh, against whom and others the defendant obtained a decree for money in January 1877. The decree was executed in that year, and partial satisfaction was obtained. In March 1890 the defendant again applied to execute the decree for the whole outstanding balance against the plaintiff and other judgment-debtors or their representatives; the plaintiff objected to the execution, on the ground that the decree had been adjusted in so far as she was concerned, but her objection was disallowed, as the adjustment had not been certified to the Court. The plaintiff brings this suit for a declaration that the defendant has no right to execute the decree as against her and for an injunction to restrain him from so executing it. She says that in August 1887 they adjusted their accounts; that her share of the amount which had been realized in satisfaction of the decree and her share of the amount which was still outstanding were apport...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //