Kolkata Court January 1919 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.
Arshed Molla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal85(2),51Ind.Cas.685
1. The three appellants Arshed Molla, Khorshed Molla and Safer Molla with four other accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge of Bakargunj sitting with two assessors on charges framed under Sections 396, 397 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result two of the accused were acquitted of all the charges. The remaining five, including the three appellants, were acquitted of the charge under Section 397 but convicted of offences under Sections 396 and 460. Khorshed and Safer were sentenced to transportation for life under Section 395 and Arshed to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under that Section. No separate sentences were passed under Section 460.2. It should be mentioned that in convicting the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge was in agreement with the opinion expressed by the assessors.3. The principal witness for the prosecution is Ram Charan Shil, in whose shop a dacoity of an aggravated character was undoubtedly committed in the early morning of the 11th March...
Nibaran Chandra Mirdha Vs. Ram Charan Mandol and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal345(1),51Ind.Cas.928
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Additional District Judge of Jessore decreeing the appeal of the defendants.2. The plaintiff's suit was to recover possession of certain jamas, The facts are briefly these:--The jamas in question originally belonged to seven co-sharers. Upon partition they were allotted to Shama Charan, and his widow Ambika Bewa leased them to the plaintiff in 1309. He held them until 1317 when he was dispossessed by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are tenants of defendant No. 5, who is a co-sharer of defendant No. 7. Both the Courts have found that the co-sharers under whom the plaintiff claims are raiyats and that, therefore, the lease which the plaintiff put forward which was for a period of more than 9 years cannot be adduced in evidence. The learned Additional District Judge has held that this disposes of the suit, as he says that the plaintiff cannot succeed except by proof of title and that as he is not entitled to give this lease...
Samaraddi and ors. Vs. Kali Chandra Nag Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.713
Beachcroft, J.1. This is a suit for possession on declaration of title. The plaintiff's case was that he was a raiyat of the land in question and that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Asraf Ali were under raiyats under him. He served notices on defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and as they did not give up possession, he brought this suit against them. The defendants other than defendants Nos. 8 to 11 were trespassers. Defendants Nos. 8 to 11 were the heirs of Asraf Ali and they were not in possession. The suit was dismissed by the first Court but decreed by the lower Appellate Court. It appears that a Kabuliyat was executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Asraf Ali before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the Kabuliyat no term is fixed. The first Court treated it as a permanent under-raiyati lease. The second Court has not come to any finding as to whether it was permanent lease or not, bat has held that it was not valid for more than 9 years after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act...
AjimuddIn Sircar Vs. Rafatulla Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.383
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rangpore, dated the 10th February 1917, confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiff sued to recover money due on a mortgage security. The contract between the parties was that the mortgage money should carry interest at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum, and there is a provision for capitalising the interest in arrears after the due date of payment. It is contended that this provision is penal and cannot be enforced. There is no doubt that there are cases which take that view as judicial opinion is divided in this matter; but the matter has been set at rest by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918 : 165 P.L.R. 1918(P.C). In that case interest was claimed at the rate of 25 per cent. per annum with annual rests arid the plaintiff was also a moneylender, as it is in t...
Jadav Chandra Moulik Vs. Manik Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.652
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpur, dated the 1st March 1917, confirming a decision of the Munsif at Kurigram. The plaintiff sued the defendant for rent. The matter in dispute between the parties was the rate of rent. There was a former litigation between the parties on the same point which came up to this Court and this Court, on the 28th February 1917, took the view of the plaintiff on the matter. On the 1st March 1917 the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court delivered his judgment, without knowing that the judgment in the former suit had been delivered by this Court on the day previous, following the decision of the lower Appellate Court in the former suit. The plaintiff now comes on appeal here. It appears that the records before the lower Appellate Court did not contain the judgment of this Court of the 28th February 1917. It is quite obvious that the proper course to adopt in the circum...
Uttam Chand Saligram Vs. Jewa Mamooji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal534
Rankin, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award made by the arbitrators appointed by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. In, this case the original contract, No. 59 B made on the 27th April of last year, was for sale of one lac of yards of Hessian cloth, the price was Rs. 30, delivery of one-half was to be made in May, and the other half in June. On that contract the petitioner was the seller, and the respondent the buyer. Delivery not having been made in May, and not being proposed to be made in June, two settlement contracts were entered into on the 31st May and 6th June, respectively. These are numbered 67B and 70B, and the price at which the same number of yards of the same goods was resold by the respondent to the petitioner, was Rs. 35.2. Now, the first matter which the petitioner alleges as the reason for having this award set aside is that at the time the arbitration was called there was no dispute, and I am quite satisfied that it is an essential condition for the arbitr...
Hira Lal Ghose Vs. Makhan Lal Daw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.64
1. In this case the petitioner was tried on a charge of cheating by Babu M.N. Haldar, Honorary Magistrate of Howrah, and was discharged under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that the accused had executed a kabala in favour of the complainant and presented it for registration, but took it back from the Sub-Registrar before registration on the pretext that he could not understand whether it was a mortgage or a kabala, and having thus obtained possession of the document, he tore it to pieces.2. The learned Honorary Magistrate discharged the accused finding that no consideration had passed and, therefore, the accused was justified in destroying the document.3. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, set aside the order of discharge and directed a further enquiry into the case.4. This Rule was obtained on behalf of the petitioner calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order for further enquiry should not be set aside.5....
Arbitration Between Uttam Chand Saligram Vs. Mahmood Jewa Mamooji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.285
Rankin, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award made by the arbitrators appointed by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. In this case the original con-tract No, 59B made on the 27th April of last year was for sale of one lac of yards of Hessian cloth, the price was Rs. 30, delivery of one-half was to be made in May, and the other half in June. On that con-tract the petitioner was the seller, and the respondent the buyer. Delivery not having been made in May, and not being proposed to be made in June, two settlement eon-tracts were entered into on the 31st May and the 6th June respectively. These are numbered 67 B and 70B, and the price at which the same number of yards, the same goods, was re sold by the respondent to the petitioner was Rs. 35.2. Now the first matter which the petitioner alleges as a reason for having this award set aside is that at the time the arbitration was called there was no dispute, and I am quite satisfied that it is an essential condition for the arbitra...
Babu Ram Mondal Vs. Dakhina Sundari Namasudrani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.726
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a 2/3rds share of certain lands which had been sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and purchased by the defendant.2. It was alleged that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant that they should purchase the property in the names of all the three persons on payment of the price in equal shares, that the defendant should take from the plaintiffs the price in respect of two shares and should himself pay from his own pocket his share of the money, that the defendant accordingly took the shares of the money from the plaintiffs but purchased the property in his own name only, and that the plaintiffs having subsequently come to know of it, the defendant took the advice of lawyers and agreed to put in a petition (admitting therein the plaintiffs' title) in the record of the execution case, and stated that there would be no difficulty in future, that he actually put in such a peti...
Sonaullah Sarkar Vs. Durga Kanta Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.598
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye, dated the 23rd January 1917, confirming a decision of the Munsif at Boalia. The suit was brought for ejectment and the circumstances giving rise to the suit are these. The plaintiff brought a former suit against the defendant claiming rent from him on the footing that the defendant was a bhag tenant. That suit failed. The plaintiff, therefore, has brought this suit to eject the defendant. It is urged that the present suit cannot be brought having regard to the fact that the decision in the rent suit was res judicata, Of course a decision in a rent suit may be res judicata as to matters actually decided therein. The question, therefore, is as to what was decided in the rent suit. The learned Judge in the Court below has found that the matter is not res judicata, Therefore, the first thing to be seen is what was the issue and what was the decision in the rent suit. We have got the judgm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »