Kolkata Court February 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.
Duli Chand Dalal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.997
John Woodroffe, J.1. The accused has been convicted under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and fined Rs. 200. A Rule was obtained by him, which was beard by Mr. Justice Teunon and Mr. Justice Beachcroft. Mr. JusticeTeunon was of opinion that the conviction of the petitioner should be set aside and the fine, if paid, should be refunded. Mr. Justice Beachcroft was of opinion that the Magistrate bad reason for coming to his findings and on the evidence he held that there was no sufficient ground for supposing that the Magistrate came to anything but a right conclusion, and Mr. Justice Beachcroft was, therefore, of opinion that the Rule should be discharged.2. The learned Judges composing the Bench which heard this case having differed in opinion, it has been referred to me.3. The issue is whether or not Rs. 140, the subject of the charge, were paid to the accused for himself an account of his brokerage or were paid to the accused for payment by him to the firm of Messrs. Seo Narain Ra...
Alec Aran Cohen Vs. Sasi Bhusan Das Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.728
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate by which he discharged the accused person under the provisions of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant in the case was one A.A. Cohen, and it appears that on what may be described as a hire-purchase agreement the accused opposite party has obtained from him a motor car. A sum of Rs. 2,310 remained due upon the car, and in that state of things the complainant brought a suit on the Original Side of this Court, praying inter alia for the appointment of a Receiver and the issue of an injunction. He obtained a decree directing payment by the defendant in that suit of the sum of Rs. 2,310 and also costs. No lien on the oar was declared; and it would seem that the prayer for the issue of an injunction and the appointment of Receiver was refused. Before the Presidency Magistrate the complainant brought his suit on the footing that the oar was still his property, and that in disposing of the car in co...
Nundo Lal Mullick Vs. Punchanon Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.484
Sanderson, C. J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves, and it is a case, in my opinion of considerable importance, having regard to one of the issues which has been raised.2. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 2,282-1413 pies. But in fact the only dispute was as to whether the defendant had paid the sum of Rs. 1,000, which was a part of the sum for which the suit was brought.3. The learned Judge when he tried the case gave his decision on the 7th of March 1916, and he came to the conclusion that an alleged receipt in respect of the Rs. 1,000 in question which was put forward by the defendant was a forgery and had not been signed by the plaintiff. He also expressed a strong opinion with regard to the way in which the witnesses gave their evidence. He said: 'if I have to choose between the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant, I would unhesitatingly prefer the evidence of the plaintiff. So far as I could see, he seemed to me a truthful witness,' and later on he sa...
Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Srinibash Kasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.1
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred against a decision of the learned District Judge of Rajshabye, dated the 13th May 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Naogaon. The suit was brought to recover rent under the terms of a kabuliyat for lands that had been let out to the defendants. The suit was undefended. The case turns on a kabuliyat in a form which my experience for the last few weeks in this Bench shows is a form which is very largely adopted by the zemindars in Bengal that is, that a certain sum is given as the cash rent, if one may use the expression, the rest; of the rent, owing to the tender heartedness of the landlord, not becoming payable until the property comes to be settled again. It may be suggested, of course, in a proper case when the proper facts have been found that that is merely a means or attempt by the landlord to override the statutory provisions laid down in Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and to enhance the rent of the tenants beyond the statu...
Ram Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Rameshwar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.523
Fletcher, J.1. These are two appeals, one by the defendant No 14 and the other by the plaintiffs.2. The point that arises is as follows:--Three brothers and one Seni Bibi mortgaged to the plaintiffs the land in the schedule to the plaint for Rs. 400. The mortgagees subsequently obtained a decree on their mortgage and brought the property to sale in execution and purchased themselves. Prior to this the defendant No. 14 purchased in execution of a money-decree against the three brothers a portion of the property and obtained the landlord's consent to the transfer to him, as the property consists of a non-transferable occupancy holding. It is said that the plaintiffs cannot recover against the defendant No 14, as the interest he holds is not derived from the three brothers but is a new interest created by the landlord. This clearly is not so. At the time that the landlord gave his consent, it was wholly unnecessary and that consent unnecessarily taken cannot deprive the plaintiffs of a po...
Madhoram Hurdeodass Vs. G.C. Sett and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.383
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Madhoram Hurdeo Dass against the decision of Chaudhuri, J., whereby he gave judgment for the plaintiffs for Rs. 2,500 as damages for breach of contract and costs.2. The contract was contained in a letter written by the defendants to the plaintiff, and dated 2nd February 1914, as follows:Calcutta, 2nd February 1914.Messes. G.C. Sett & B.R. Sett,Dear Sirs, Calcutta.We beg to enter as having sold you through Broker P.N. Mookerjee 150 tons Basic Steel bars with usual 10 per cent. 2nd class extras at 5-7-6 per ton C.I.F. i.e., free Hooghly. Shipment in three monthly lots commencing June, i.e., June, July, August 1914. Delivery to be completed within three days from the date of the landing of the goods. Terms 45 days credit from the date of the delivery of the goods, failing which due date will be calculated from the due date of the delivery, i.e., three days of the landing of the goods.This sale is made on the basis of the existing terms...
AzimuddIn Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Peer Mahomed Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.137
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rungpore, dated the 15th March 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Gaibandha. The plaintiffs who are raiyats sued to recover possession of 15 bighas of land from the defendants. The case has been disposed of in the lower Courts on the basis of a kabuliyat with a certain, what has been called, option or covenant in favour of the tenants, under which it is said that the tenants are entitled either to have a new settlement or to lease the land. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that the terms of this option or Covenant in the lease are not certain or defined either as regards the new term to be granted or the new rent to be payable. He has, therefore, held that the defendants are not liable to be ejected on that ground. That view, I think, is clearly wrong. Once it is held that the so called option or covenant for the grant of a further lease is uncert...
Munshi EmaduddIn Chowdhury Vs. Danesh Mamud and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.240
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpore, dated the 8th April 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought for ejectment. The right of suit was based on a kabuliyat the term of which had expired. The kabuliyat, a translation of which is before us, is the sole document which has been referred to in this case. Under the kabvliyat, it is stated in the argument, that it is admitted by defendant No. 1 that his right is that of an under-ryot within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That depends on what the meaning of the words 'korfa ryot' is Personally I do not know the Bengali language; but the learned gentlemen, who appear in this case, and my learned brother, who is sitting with me, say that the words 'korfa ryot' do not necessarily mean an 'under-ryot' but may mean a ryot under a tenure-holder or some other person. If that is so, it seems to me to be quite clear that the learned Judge in the Cou...
Muhammad Ibrahim or Ibrahim Pahalwan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.977
1. In this case the appellant Muhammad Ibrahim or Ibrahim Pahalwan Was placed on his trial with six others before the 4th Presidency Magistrate on charges of unlawful possession of opium Under Section 9 of Act I of 1878. All were convicted and sentenced and the present accused, who received an appealable sentence, has appealed.2. The case for the prosecution is that in concert with certain informers certain Excise Officers arranged to give to the appellant a quantity of cocaine in exchange for a corresponding quantity of opium to be obtained from him. For the purpose of carrying through the transaction a house, No. 1, Eden Hospital Lane, was hired. In this house behind the ball there are two rooms with an inter-communicating door. At the bottom of this door there are two holes, one a semicircular hole measuring 2 1/2 by 1 1/2 inches at the meeting of the two-halves, and one a larger triangular hole caused by the decay of the wood work against the door post on the west. There are also d...
Kali Das Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Srimati Danpadi Sundari Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.893
Sanderson, C.J.1 .This is an appeal from a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves, and the sole question which has been argued before us is whether the claim in the suit was barred by the Statute of Limitation.2. I will deal in detail with the nature of the suit directly.3. The suit was brought on the 8th of February 1913, and it was alleged to be in respect of a certain partnership of which the plaintiff Hari Prosad Saha was a member up to the 27th of June 1910. Before the case came on for trial, it was discovered that a necessary party, Mokshoda Sundari Ghowdhurani, had not been added and she was added on the 12th of February 1914, so that as regards the added party the claim was barred or was alleged to be barred, and consequently as she was a necessary party, the claim was alleged to be barred against the other parties. Therefore, when the case came on for trial the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, Mr. S.R. Das, according to the minutes said, the suit is bar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »