Kolkata Court January 1917 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.
Nakymo Dewani and ors. Vs. Jerang Dewan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1917
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.971
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Darjeeling and Dinajpore, dated the 1st December 1913, dismissing the suit. The suit was brought for the purpose of setting aside a compromise that had been entered into in a former suit, which is said to have been in contravention of Section 462 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was then in force. The facts out of which the case arises are as follows: One Lochho Tunqui had two sons Chuboo and Dudock. The parties came from the State of Bhutan and the law applicable to the parties is the Buddhist or the Customary Law as is recognized and which is in force in the State of Bhutan. Chuboo, who seems to have rendered important political services to the British Government, was awarded for such services a grant of 74,016 acres of land in the District of Darjeeling. Chuboo died in 1866 having been predeceased by his brother Dudock. Chuboo left one son named Rechak Dewan and a d...
Raj Kumar Kusari Vs. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.437
1. In this case the petitioner, who was the Secretary and is also described as the Manager of the Darjeeling Press Company, Limited, has been convicted under Section 134(4) of Act VII of 1913, that is to say, the Indian Companies Act, on the footing that he is an officer of the said Company and had knowingly and wilfully authorized or permitted default to be made in submitting to the Registrar of Companies the balance sheet laid before the Company at its general meeting. The balance sheet in question is the balance sheet for the year ending on the 31st of March 1914; and part of the defence of the petitioner was or appears to have been that it was in fact impossible for him to comply with the requirements of Section 134, inasmuch as in fact there had been no general meeting before which any balance sheet for the year 1914 could be laid. Prom the proceedings before the fourth Presidency Magistrate it is impossible for us to say on what findings of fact the Magistrate has acted in convic...
Rajeswar Bagchi and Nripati Chandra Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.725
1. This Rule is directed against the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Rangpur convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 62(6) of the Stamp Act II of 1899 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20.2. It appears that on the 11th Agrahyan 1319, one Arajulla Sheikh applied to an institution, known as the Gaibandha Bank, Limited, for a loan of Rs. 50. The application was made on a prescribed form, which contains columns intended to show the signature of the person recommending the loan or undertaking any responsibility on behalf of the applicant. In that form one Sadat Ali stated that the applicant was a middle class man and gave certain other particulars with regard to him and recommended that he should be granted the loan on a bond. He then added the words in Bengali, 'ami adai karia diba', that is to say, I will make the payment or see that the payment is made, in other words, be said 'I guarantee the payment.' The present petitioner was at that time, and we are informed th...
In Re: Babu Hari Prosunno Mookerjee, Mukhtear
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.305
John Woodroffe, J.1. The Sessions Judge has reported that he thinks that it is clearly established that the Police received a bribe from one Ismail Haji through the Mukhtear Hari Prosunno Mookerjee, who acted as go-between in the matter. Ismail and some of his friends had Police cases pending against them and the object of the bribe was to secure that they should not be sent up for trial. The learned Judge was not prepared to find that the Mukhtear's conduct comes under Clause (b) of Section 13, but found that his action certainly furnished reasonable cause for punishment under Section 13 (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act, which says that a legal practitioner may be visited with suspension or dismissal for any other reasonable cause than those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 13.2. The first question is whether or not the charge has been established in fact against the Mukhtear. To ascertain this we have read and considered the whole of the evidence in the. case. It appears ...
The Bengal Stone Company Ld. Vs. Joseph Isaac Joseph Hyam and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.738
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs for an account in respect of certain building transactions which were undertaken by the defendants for the plaintiffs, Mr. Hyam and Mr. Jones. Those building transactions were undertaken in pursuance of an agreement dated the 21st of January 1909. It is not necessary for me for the purpose of this case to deal in any detail with the terms of that agreement. It is sufficient for me to state that the defendants, the Bengal Stone Company, Ld., were to erect two sets of premises, one in Park Street, and the other in Bow Bazar Street, and that they were not to be liable to spend on all accounts more than a specified sum of money, and the method of payment was that 'the owners (the plaintiffs in this case) should pay the Stone Company (the defendants) for all materials the actual cost price thereof plus all charges and expenses actually paid or incurred by the Stone Company in collecting and placing the same on site and ...
Sekandar Sheikh and ors. Vs. Anu Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.69
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal, although it has been argued at some little length, has got absolutely nothing in it. The points have obviously been rightly decided by the lower Appellate Court. Two points have been pressed most before us. The first is that the defendant No. 1 purchased the property in execution of the mortgage decree it a suit to which the appellants before us were not parties and that, therefore, the plaintiffs are not bound by that decree and by some principle of law which is not altogether clear, it is said that the defendant No, 1 is estopped from alleging that he has got a title by adverse possession, having been settled on the property by the admitted landlord and having ousted the original tenants for more than two years, That is a proposition I do not agree with.2. The second point that is put forward and argued is that the special rule of limitation in Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, only applies in cases in which the landlord himself is a defen...
Sheikh Ali Mamud Vs. Sheikh Miarish
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1917
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.779
1. The decree-holder, who is the appellant in this case, obtained a decree for foreclosure upon a mortgage. The decree gave six months' time to the mortgagor to redeem. The latter preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed and there was no direction in the decree of the Appellate Court that the six months' time would run from the date of that decree. The date of the original decree was 27th August 1913 and the appeal against that decree was dismissed on 1st December 1914. On 11th February 1915, the decree holder applied for the decree being made absolute, and a final decree was passed. Subsequently on 24th May the mortgagor deposited the money in Court and that was accepted, by the Munsif. Subsequently that order was set aside at the instance of the decree-holder, when it was pointed out to the Court that the final decree had already been passed.2. The order of the Munsif was set aside by the lower Appellate Court, on the ground that the six months' time had run from the date of the...
Kshirod Gobinda Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Rajendra Narayan Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.94
Fletcher, J.1. These are three appeals preferred by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pabna, dated the 23rd June 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suits were originally instituted under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Revenue Officer acting under the first proviso of that section transferred the suits to a competent Civil Court, the competent Civil Court being the Court of the Munsif. From that decision, appeals were preferred to the lower Appellate Court and from the decision of the lower Appellate Court the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.2. The first point that has been urged in these appeals is that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals from the decision of the Munsif in these cases. That seems to me to be an untenable argument. The cases having been transferred under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to a competent Civil Court, the competency ...
Nalini Kanta Laha and ors. Vs. Anukul Chandra Laha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.490
1. In this case it appears that proceedings under Sections 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code have been taken in the Court of the Senior Deputy Magistrate of Howrah, against the petitioners. These proceedings are in respect of a deed of sale executed by one Niroda Moyee Dasi in favour of petitioner No. 1, Nalini Kanta Laha, though ostensibly in favour of petitioner No. 3, Fakir Chandra Chakraverty. The document bears date 11th September 1915, and was registered on the 26th October 1915, before the Sub-Registrar of Amta.2. The complainant in the proceedings is one Ankul Chandra Laha, who holds a conveyance of the same plot of land purporting to have beer; executed by Niroda Moyee on the 10th October 1915 This document was presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar of Howarh on the 25th of October and was ultimately registered under the order of the District Registrar on the 2nd December 1915. The complainant's ease is that the document in favour of Nalini Kanta and Fakir Ch...
Ram Kumar Chackerbutty Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.65
Fletcher, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the defendants against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 27th June 1913, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Feni. The plaintiff brought the suits out of which these appeals have arisen to recover rents from the defendants as his tenants after declaration of his title to the lands. Rents were asked for a period extending from Agrahan 1314 to Kartick 1317 B.S. In their written statements the defendants set up three pleas; first of all, that they held the lands as Niskar lands, secondly, that, if they were not Niskar, their possession had been adverse to the plaintiff since the 27th Agrahan 1290 T.E. and thirdly, that the plaintiff's suits were barred by limitation. The third plea obviously has reference to the amounts of rents sued for between Agrahan 1314 and Kartick 1317 B.S. The adverse title set up was from a specific date, the 27th Agrahan 1290 T.E. The cases came on for trial. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »