Kolkata Court December 1915 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chattu Gope and ors. Vs. Budhu Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.472
Chaudhuri, J.1. In these matters, 1 issued lJules on the plaintiffs in the above suits to show cause why the order refusing sanction to prosecute them should not be set aside, or why an enquiry should not be directed in order to grant such sanction. The application was headed 'in the matter of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,' but when it was made, it appeared to me to be more appropriate to head it under the Criminal Procedure Code, and in fact the learned Standing Counsel treated it as such an application. It has been argued that it does not come under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is not necessary, to consider. Under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court is the superior Court of the Presidency Small Cause Court and has power to deal with the order which was made by that Court. This has not been seriously contested by learned Counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs. Formal amendment of the heading will, if necessary be made. So far as ...
Sailabala Debi and ors. Vs. Nritya Gopal Sen Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.859
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Dacca, dated the 18th May 1914, should hot be set aside. The matter arises out of the sale of a holding at the instance of the landlords in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. The holding had previously been sold by a mortgagee of the original tenant in execution of a decree on the mortgage and purchased by the mortgagee for the guru of Rs. 400. At the sale at the landlord's instance, the holding was purchased by the landlords for the sum of Rs. 38 only. The mortgagee then applied Under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in conducting the sale. The Court of first instance held that the mortgagee had no Zooms standi to make such an application and, for that and other reasons, dismissed the application. On appeal, the learned District fudge held, on the contrary, that the mortgagee was entitled to ...
Lala Basdeo NaraIn Vs. Musammat Bachan Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.358
1. On the 26th September 1389, Musammat Tafa Koer executed a conveyance purporting to convey a certain property in the name of Lala Rajbansi Lal On the 17th May 1898 Lala Rajbansi Lal executed a mortgage of this property in favour of the plaintiff. But sometime after the execution of the mortgage, Mahant Darbishergir was recorded in the Collectorate as the proprietor of this property. On the 26th March 1907, Mahant Darbishergir executed a conveyance purporting to convey the property to Lala Bansdeo Narayan. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit brought upon the mortgage-bond executed by Lala Rajbansi Lal in May 1898. Lala Bansdeo Narain and Mahant Darbishergir were made parties to the suit on the allegation that the mortgagor Lala Rajbansi Lal, in order to defeat the plaintiff, fraudulently procured the registration of Mahant Darbisheigir's name as the proprietor of the mortgaged property and with the same object subsequently fraudulently procured a fictitious conveyance b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›