Kolkata Court January 1916 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.
Kali Kumar Saha Vs. Kali Prasanna Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.492
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff in persuance of the provisions of Rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff had obtained a money-decree against defendant No. 2 and one other and proceeded to attach a money-decree that defendant No. 2 had obtained against the defendant No. 3. The decree obtained by defendant No. 2 against defendant No. 3 had already been under attachment by two other decree-holders before the date of the plaintiff's money-decree. It appears that between the date of the attachment of the decree by the other decree-holders of the defendant No. 2 and the date on which the plaintiff obtained his decree, the defendant No. 2 had transferred his decree against defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1, who has been the contesting defendant in the suit. On the plaintiff applying for attachment of the decree an objection was raised by defendant No. 1 on the ground that there had been a valid transfer in his favour by defendant No...
A.K.A. Khan Ghuznavi Vs. National Bank of India, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.34
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was an action by the Bank for the recovery of Rs. 25,454-12-9 alleged to be due from the defendant A.K. Ghuznavi upon a contract in writing, dated the 10th June 1913.2. It appears that the defendant's brother A.H. Ghuznavi, trading under the name of A.H. Ghuznavi & Co., as jute bailer and shipper, had an account at the Bank: advances were made by the Bank to A.H. Ghuznavi & Co. against shipping documents in relation to jute in course of shipment: the form of overdraft being known here as advances against shipping lien,' the rate of interest charged being 1 per cent, over Bank of Bengal rate with a minimum of 5 per cent.3. During the course of business it was discovered that certain dock receipts and bills of lading, which had been handed to the Bank by A.H. Ghuznavi & Co., were spurious, and consequently a considerable amount of the overdraft was unsecured.4. Certain securities were pledged with the Bank by A.H. Ghuznavi & Co., but they were insufficient...
Rampat Mohato and ors. and Vs. Ram Golam Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.982
1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the Record of Rights prepared under that Act the lands were entered as kabil, lagan. The landlord made applications for settlement of fair rent under Section 105 of the Act. The applications were opposed by the tenants, among other grounds, on the ground of limitation. The question of limitation was decided in favour of the landlord.2. The Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the application on the ground that there was already an existing rent of Rs. 2-4-0 per bigha in each case. There were appeals to the Special Judge resulting in orders remanding the cases to the Assistant Settlement Officer for disposal on the merits. On remand the Assistant Settlement Officer decided that a fair rental would be Rs. 5-4-0 per bigha. Against that decision the tenants appealed. The Special Judge finally disposed of the matter in appeal by settling rent at Rs. 8-8-0 an acre. The tenants now appeal to this C...
Prabhu Lal and anr. Vs. Kumar Krishna Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.73
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the application was by one Nunnumull that his attorney should be discharged and that the attorney should be ordered to make over all the papers in a certain suit, No. 1171 of 1913, to another attorney: and the order which was made by the learned Judge--one of the defendants Nannumull appearing in person and the attorney consenting--was 'that the attorney be discharged from further acting as the attorney for both the defendants, Prabhu Lal and Nunnumull, in this suit and that the defendants be at liberty to appoint another attorney to act for them in the reference before the Official Referee of this Court,' and it was further ordered that the attorney Babu Kumar Krishna Dutt without prejudice to his lien for costs due to him in this suit do produce before the said Official Referee such papers and documents as may be in his possession when required by the said defendants upon their paying beforehand to the said Babu Kumar Krishna Dutt his costs of ...
Nabadip Chandra Nandi and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.968
1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. In the first place, there was no summons upon any body to produce the documents and, therefore, Order XVI, Rule 10, did not apply, and secondly, if Order XVI, Rule 10, did apply, the procedure laid down in that rule was not followed, and until it was followed, no order under Rule 12 could possibly be made. The Civil Courts, and particularly the peripatetic Settlement Courts which cause a large amount of disturbance to local interests, cannot be too careful to follow the provisions of law strictly as regards summoning persons and documents before them. It appears to us that the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer affirming them were wholly without jurisdiction and must be set aside; and if the Assistant Settlement Officer requires any documents from the petitioners he must proceed strictly in accordance with law.2. The Rule is made absolute with costs to...