Kolkata Court November 1919 Judgments
Harendra Lal Sanyal Vs. Pabna Model Company, Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.256
JUDGMENT 1. In this case it appears that four brothers of the name of Sanyals and two ladies, being the wives of two of the brothers, executed a mortgage-bond in favour of the decree-holder who is the respondent before us. In this mortgage-bond five properties were mortgaged and of these three were described as the property of one of the two ladies, namely, a lady of the name of Nil Nalini Debi, the other two being the property of one or more of the other five mortgagors. The respondent before us brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree for the sale of the mortgaged properties sometime in December 1916. Thereafter in March 1917 the sons of Nil Nalini brought a suit to have it declared that the decree was not binding upon them or as against the properties of Nil Nalini, on the ground that Nil Nalini had died before the mortgage suit was instituted. This suit was decreed on the 21st February 1918. On the 10th of April 1918 the decree-holder made an application for the revival...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Lahiri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.657
1. This Rule has been granted limiting it to the ground that ''the facts found do not warrant a conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act.' The facts found are that the accused sold morphia as evidenced by his prescription, dated the 27th May 1919. And that it was not supplied gratis.2. We think that the Magistrate was right in convicting the accused. We consider his judgment to be good and very well considered. Rule 6 expressly states that an approved practitioner may possess morphia for use in his practise but not for sale. The Magistrate is quite right in saying that there is a clear distinction between use in practice and sale to one's patients. We agree with the view expressed by him.3. The Rule is, therefore, discharged and the conviction and sentence affirmed....
Tag this Judgment!Amir Mia Vs. Sarafdi Hazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.204
1. This reference is based upon a misreading of Sections 224 and 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 244 lays down that 'if the accused does not make an admission, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as be produces in his defence.' The section does not say that the complainant himself has got to be examined. The words ' the Magistrate shall proceed to hear ' are also used in reference to the accused in the same section, which supports the view which we have expressed. Then, Section 247 provides that ' If the summons has been issued on complaint and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything here in before contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason h...
Tag this Judgment!Jharu Khan and ors. Vs. Sarada Charan Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.614
1. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated upon a Police report dated the 15th August 1919. The area was not stated in the report, but it appears from a map which is annexed to it that 4,000 bighas were covered within the boundaries given. The first party consists of two tenants and eight agents of the Teota Raja and the second party consists of six persons who are said to be old tenants, Then there is a vague reference to others. As it mentioned an 'imminent fear of a breach of the peace', the whole of this land was attached and the Police was directed to sell the standing grass by the Sub Divisional Officer who took cognisance of the matter. Both parties objected to the sale of the grass. The petition of the 2nd party was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer on the 19th August 1999. On the 20th the first party filed a petition before the District Magistrate against that order. That petition, so far as we can make out, was one complaining of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Chandolia Vs. Kundanmull and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.140
Buckland, J.1. On the 8th day of Sraban Sudi, Sambat 1975, that is, 15th August 1918, the parties to this suit entered into a contrast for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant firm of 15 bales of grey shirting's known as Kettlewell and Buallen's grey shirtings at the price of Rs. 29-13-0 per piece: delivery was to be given in 2 months from the date of the sale, that is to say, by the 13th October 1918. The contract contains the following words: 'ready goods bought by us from the market have been sold to you.2. The plaintiff's case is that he was ready to give delivery on the due date, but that the defendant failed to take it, and that on the 17th October these goods were re sold on account of and at the risk of the defendant firm. Damages amounting to Rs. 11,806 14 0 are claimed, this sum being the difference between the contract price and the value of the goods realised on the sale, and alternatively Rs. 13,103 4 0, upon the usual basis, the plaint having been amended to include...
Tag this Judgment!Roja Krishna Das Law and ors. Vs. (Mahamed in Vakalutnama) Golam Nabi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.94
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal was remanded for certain findings by the lower Appellate Court.2. The findings have now been returned and the appeal has been partly argued before us. The learned Pleader for the respondents now takes an objection to the hearing of the appeal, on the ground that no second appeal lies having regard to the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. There is no doubt that a question of title was raised in the case, but the pro forma defendants, whose title the principal defendants Set up, were no parties to the appeal before the lower Appellate Court against whose decree the present second appeal was preferred. It is true that they were parties in the Court of first instance, but in that Court, the suit was decreed. The principal defendants appealed and the pro forma defendants were left out in that appeal.4. In these circumstances, the decree of the lower Appellate Court cannot be said to have decided a question of title to land, or some interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramali Mohon Roy Vs. Abdul Nassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.115
Beachcroft, J.1. The question in this appeal is as to the amount of enhancement of rent which the plaintiff is entitled to on the ground of a rise in the average price of staple food crops. The Courts below are agreed that he is entitled to an enhancement. The first Court gave an enhancement of annas 5, pies 8 in the rupee making its calculation, in strict accordance with Section 32(b) of the Bengal Tenancy, Act. The Appellate Court has reduced the amount of the enhancement to 2 annas in the rupee on the ground of equitable considerations, purporting, to act under Section 35 of the Act. The main argument is that the Appellate Court was not justified in interfering in this way with the enhancement made in accordance with Section 32(b), unless it could point to some definite circumstances showing that it would be unfair and inequitable to make the enhancement. It appears that a Commissioner was appointed to make a local investigation and he reported the land to be good. The learned Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Lal Mullick Vs. Surendra Kishore Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.487
1. In this matter a Rule has been issued sailing upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore, dated the 19th May 1919, referred to in the petition herein should not be set aside or such other order passed in the matter as to this Court may seem fit, on the first ground mentioned in the petition which rune as follows: 'For that having found your petitioner's claim to be bona fide the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct your petitioner to go to the Civil Court within three months to establish his claim.'2. It appears that on the 5th November 1918, an application was made by the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, alleging that the Ghat referred to in the petition together with the way leading to it was a public one and that the same had been obstructed by the petitioner and praying for an order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this application a conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Jogai Didhur Fakir Vs. Barada Kanta Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.653
Beachcroft, J.1. In these proceedings the plaintiff, who is the respondent before this Court, sued to recover Rs. 10 as the price of produce rent. The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. The matter was taken on appeal and the Subordinate Judge held that the relationship did exist and gave the plaintiff a decree for the amount admitted by the defendant, namely, a sum of Rs. 3. In the present appeal an objection is raised on behalf of the respondent that under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the appeal by the tenant is incompetent What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the learned Vakil for the appellant answers that if the appeal to this Court is incompetent so was the appeal to the lower Appellate Court, because the Munsif was especially empowered under Section 153 (1)(b) to exercise final jurisdiction in the suit. This being the state of things, it is obvious that there was no appeal to the lower Appell...
Tag this Judgment!Epasan Ali Vs. Ram Kumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.375
Beachcroft, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff. He brought a suit for specific performance of a contract for renewal of a sub-lease under the defendant. The plaintiff originally took a lease for nine years running from the 15th of Bysakh 1268 M.E. On the expiry of that lease a question arose as to the renewal of the lease. The Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance, the plaintiff's claim being for renewal at the original rent. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance subject to certain conditions, but on terms which were not altogether to the liking of the plaintiff; and he has appealed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The original lease took a form often to be found in old leases. It set out that the rental was to be 200 aris of paddy or Rs. 48, and as regards the renewal there was a clause that on the expiry of the term, the tenant would get a re-settlement of the land. Leases of this class h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »