Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-22-1919
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-18-1919
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.406
Rankin, J.1. This action has as against the Assam Bengal Railway Company, Limited (the first defendants), been dismissed by consent, and it proceeds against the India General Navigation and Railway-Company, Limited, as the only remaining defendants. I shall refer to these two companies as the railway company and the steamship company respectively.2. The line of the railway company runs from Assam to Chittagong, and consignments of tea from Assam for shipment at the port of Chittagong are ordinarily carried over this line by the railway company itself without recourse to any other companies or systems of transport. A section of this line, south of Lumding, is known as the hill section and is subject at times to a breakdown. In July 1913 for a very short time this hill section was out of action. On this occasion the breach continued for so short a time that it is not certain whether the arrangements then made for dealing with the Assam traffic during this emergency were ever acted on in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-03-1919
Reported in : 56Ind.Cas.373
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to have the Will of ore Ram Gopal Sen construed and the rights, shares and interests under the said Wilt of the parties to the suit ascertained and for administration of the estate of Ram Gopal Sen under the direction of the Court and for an account of the estate from the defendant Bidhumukhi Dasi from the testator's death and for partition. The plaintiff is a son of Ram Gopal Sen, the let defendant is his widow and the executrix of his Will, the defendant Sham Lal Sen is a son, the defendants Manick Lal Sen, Nitya Lal Sen and GourLal Sen are sons of a deceased son Heera Lal Sen who survived the testator and died after the institution of the suit the defendants Sankar Lal Sen, Rash Behary Sen and Gosto Behary Sen are sons of another son of the testator named Bolai Chand Sen who survived the testator and died in the year 1895, the defendant Champa Dassi is the widow of another son Adhar Lal Sen who survived the testator and died in 1885 wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-25-1919
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.140
Buckland, J.1. On the 8th day of Sraban Sudi, Sambat 1975, that is, 15th August 1918, the parties to this suit entered into a contrast for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant firm of 15 bales of grey shirting's known as Kettlewell and Buallen's grey shirtings at the price of Rs. 29-13-0 per piece: delivery was to be given in 2 months from the date of the sale, that is to say, by the 13th October 1918. The contract contains the following words: 'ready goods bought by us from the market have been sold to you.2. The plaintiff's case is that he was ready to give delivery on the due date, but that the defendant failed to take it, and that on the 17th October these goods were re sold on account of and at the risk of the defendant firm. Damages amounting to Rs. 11,806 14 0 are claimed, this sum being the difference between the contract price and the value of the goods realised on the sale, and alternatively Rs. 13,103 4 0, upon the usual basis, the plaint having been amended to include...
Tag this Judgment!