Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-03-1918
Reported in : AIR1919Cal1014,44Ind.Cas.694
1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the petitioner (The Bengal Provident and Insurance Company Limited) calling upon the opposite party (Kamini Kumar Choudhury) to show cause why the decree of the District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 11th July 1916, should not be set aside or why such other order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit. The matter arises out of a suit brought by the opposite-party upon two policies of life insurance issued by the petitioner Company to his father Ram Gour Choudhury now deceased. It appears that Ram Gour Choudhury the assured, sent proposal forms for those policies from some place in the Chittagong District to the head office of the Company at Calcutta and that the policies were made out in that office and thence despatched to the assured. The assured subsequently died at Baspara in the District of Noakhali and this suit was instituted in the Court of the Local Munsif at Feni in that district. Objection was taken at the trial that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-1918
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ23
1. This was a suit brought by Messrs. Best & Co. Ltd., a firm of merchants carrying on business in this city, for a declaration that an agreement dated the 4th October 1915 entered into by them with the Collector of Madras of the day was binding on the parties. The action is brought because, on the 22nd May 1917, the Collector purporting to act in consequence of the Income-Tax Act, V of 1916 declared that the agreement was no longer binding on him and repudiated it. The plaintiffs tendered the sum that they sad to be due under the agreement and brought this action to safeguard their rights under it. The agreement is one made with the Collector of Madras under the provisions of the former Income-Tax Act (II of 1886) Section 31, which enables persons, instead of being reassessed every year, to arrange with the Collector for a definite sum to be assessed for a fixed period and in this case the period agreed upon was five years from the 1st April 1915. The plaintiffs originally sued the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-03-1918
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ110
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal from the award of the District Court of Coimbatore was heard by a Bench consisting of Ayling and Sadasiva Iyer, JJ. Both the learned Judges differed, generally speaking, from the Land Acquisition Judge and among themselves on some questions relating to the principle on which the value of the property was to be assessed. The total amount claimed by the owner, was 8 lakhs. The land acquisition judge confirming the valuation of the Collector made ah award of one lakh and seventy two thousand rupees in round figures. Ayling, J. on the basis on which he proceeded held that the amount of the award should be enhanced by Rs. 7,000 and Sadasiva Aiyar, J. on the method of valuation adopted by him was for awarding on the whole an additional sum of about Rs. 56,000. We understand that a question was then raised before the learned judges as to what should be the order of the High Court under such circumstances. The learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-13-1918
Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad943
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal from the award of the District Court of Coimbatore was heard by a Bench consisting of Ayling and Sadasiva Ayyar, JJ., Both the learned Judges differed, generally speaking, from the Land Acquisition Judge and among themselves on some questions relating to the principle on which the value of the property was to be assessed. The total amount claimed by the owner was eight lakhs. The Land Acquisition Judge, confirming the valuation of the Collector, made an award of one lakh and seventy-two thousand rupees in round figures. Ayling, J., on the basis on which he proceeded held that the amount of the award should be enhanced by Rs. 7,000 and Sadasiva Ayyar, J., on the method of valuation adopted by him was for awarding on the whole an additional sum of about Us. 56,000. We understand that a question was then raised before the learned Judges as to what should be the order of the High Court under such circumstances. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-05-1918
Reported in : 50Ind.Cas.567
Teunon, J.1. In this case the facts found are that in the year 1306, one Somir sold a portion of his non-transferable occupancy holding to one Fazil, that on a subsequent partition between the landlords this Jote, formerly held under Gyanoda Sundari, Abinash Chandra Ray and others, was allotted to the share of the present plaintiff, and that in 1318 Somir surrendered to the new landlord the portion of his Jote which he had previously sold to Fazil.2. On these findings the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff-landlord is entitled to recover khas possession from the heirs of Fazil.3. He supports this decision by saying that it was agreed, i, e., that it was provided in the conveyance that Fazil should have his name recorded in the landlord's Sherista as a tenant of the land in suit at a rental of Rs. 2-1-0. In the course of the 12 years that had elapsed after the sale Fazil had failed to secure a settlement or recognition from the landlord and his vendor, the original te...
Tag this Judgment!