Kolkata Court December 1919 Judgments
Nazir Ali Vs. the Collector of Chittagong and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.681
1. This appeal arises out of a reference made by the Collector of Chittagong to the District Judge under Section 18, Act I of 1894, Two questions arise on the appeal: (1) Whether the valuation made by the Collector and accepted by the learned Judge is correct; (2) Whether the appellant has any title to the land acquired and is, therefore, entitled to the whole or a portion of the value of the property. It is convenient before dealing with the first question to deal with the second for, if the appellant is found to have no title, it would not be necessary at his instance to consider the question of valuation.2. The tenant interest in the property admittedly belonged to one Kader Baksh and on his death it was inherited by his daughter Pearijan. Pearijan executed what purports on the facts of it to be a deed of sale out and out in favour of one Maniraddin Soudagar on the 8th of Assar 1253 Maghi, corresponding with the 21st of June 1890. On the same day two other documents were executed. O...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kishore Choudhury Vs. Mothura Mohan Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.228
Teunon, J.1. In this case it is said that he appellant and respondent were partners in a certain business, and the latter obtained a decree against the former for a sum of some Rs. 9,000 borrowed on a Hatchitta. This was on the 28th February 1918.2. In execution of this decree, the respondent on the 10th September 1918 attached and seeks to put to sale his judgment debtor's properties.3. On the 26th May 1919 the appellant before us brought a suit for accounts and for the sum that might thus be found due to him from the partnership business. Having instituted his suit on the 11th of June, the appellant next applied that pending the disposal of the said suit the execution of the decree against him should be stayed. On the 5th July the learned Subordinate Judge refused to stay execution, and it is against that order that the present appeal has been preferred.4. On behalf of the respondent it is contended, inter alia, that against this order no appeal lies. The question then is, whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Nookoor Chandra Mullick Vs. Rajani Kanta Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.51
Teunon, J.1. In this case it appears that on the 27th February 1915 the Munsif of Serampore granted 'with costs' what was in effect an application for letting aside an ex parte decree.2. On the 8th of March following, a formal document described as a 'rubkari' was drawn up. In this document the sum (Rs. 26-10 0) payable by way of acs's to the successful applicant was specified.3. On the 6th March 1918 the applicant, who is the appellant before us, applied in execution for the realisation of his costs.4. The question before us is, whether the application in execution is barred by limitation.5. Both the Courts regarded or treated the 'rubkari' of the 8th of March 1915 as a decree and, applying the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Order XX, Rule 7, held that limitation ran from the 27th of February 1915, and that the appellant's application was barred.6. In this, we are of opinion, they have fallen into error.7. The rubkari is not a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Banso Gopal Tewari and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar Dhar Vs. RamdIn Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1919
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.727
Richardson, J.1. The short point in this appeal in whether an application for execution is barred by limitation. The decree was made on the 4th September 1906, and several attempts have been made to execute it. The present is the third occasion on which the proceedings have come before the High Court. The judgment of the Court in reference to the second application for execution is reported as Chandra Kumar v. Ram Din 13 Ind. Cas. 702 15 C.L.J. 251 : 16 C.W.N. 493. That application, however, had already been dismissed when the judgment was delivered. It is not disputed that the third application filed on the 12th May 1911 was in time. The application was treated in the first instants as an independent application for execution and as such was dismissed for default on the 2nd February 1912. But the proceedings appear to have been continued by the application made on the 19th December 1913, praying that the hairs of a decree holder who had died might be brought on the record and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Banerjee Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.643
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a compromise decree under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff (decree-holder) sued the defendants (judgment-debtors) for recovery of possession of 10 bighas and odd cottas of land situate in the Barraokpore Cantonments. The suit was compromised by a petition dated the 2Sth May 1915. The defendant recognised the right of the plaintiff to the land in suit, and admitted that the same formed part of the Cantonment waste land as claimed by the plaintiff, and fell outside their holding. The plaintiff, and the defendant agreed that the land in suit might be treated as a separate holding, that no additional tax would be imposed for the same, and that the defendant would execute a lease (agreement) within two months from that date in Form B, Schedule VI of the Cantonment Code, in accordance with Section 264, Explanation 1(d), but subject to the terms of the petition of compromise, and that on default, the terms would come to an e...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Sanyal and anr. Vs. Mati Lal Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.382
1. This was an application by Kedar Nath Sanyal and others, the added respondents to England, to remove an order for stay of execution and to direct that execution of certain decrees should be proceeded with.2. This application had reference to an order made by Mr. Justice Woodroffe and myself on the 24th June 1919, sitting to hear matters relating to Privy Council appeals. The material part of the order we made was as follows:-- 'It is ordered that the execution of the said decree of this Court, dated the 3rd April 1917, be and the same is hereby stayed pending the disposal of the above appeals to His Majesty in Council upon the appellant to England giving security to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca for Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) by the 20tb September 1919 and on the understanding that he, the appellant to England, waives any objection to the sale proclamation which has already been published and any objection that may be raised on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Norendra Bhusan Roy and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representativ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.402
1. This appeal arises out of an application to set aside the sals of a gunti tenure purporting to be held under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The application was treated as being one under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, but the statements in the petition go to show that it was an application under Section 47,CivilProcedure Code. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that there were no material irregularities and that it was not proved that the price of the property was inadequate.3. The main contention raised before us is that the sale was void because although the suit was framed under Section 148-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, notice of the sale had not been served upon the co sharer landlords, who are the appellants before us, before the tenure was put up to sale, as directed by Section 158-B of the Bengal Tenancy Act.4. The learned District Judge held that the omission to serve the notice did not nullify the sale and that it 'reduced the sale to the st...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Akub Ali Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.851
Newbould, J.1. Each of these three accused was separately tried on a charge of keeping more than 300 tins of kerosine oil in his boat without a license or pass, an offence punishable under Section 15(a) of Act VIII of 1899. Each accused pleaded guilty and filed a written statement. The Magistrate after recording the plea of guilty adjourned the cases. At the nest hearing after examining one Court witness in each case, he convicted each accused and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each. The learned Sessions Judge of Tipperah has referred these cases with a recommendation that the convictions and sentences be set aside, on the ground that the accused merely carried the kerosine tins under the orders of the sub-agent of Messrs. Bullock Brothers and Company who had a general license for the transport of kerosine oil.2. Differing with regret from my learned brother I would hold that we should not interfere in this case. There can be no doubt that the principle of Section 412, Criminal...
Tag this Judgment!Meherjan Bibi and ors. Vs. Syed KamruddIn Hafiz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.149
1. This appeal is presented against an order of remand. It appears that in the suit out of which the appeal arises the plaintiffs, who were 8 in number, sought as heirs of one Rukima Banu to recover a sum of Rs. 700 said to be the dower due to that lady from the estate of her deceased husband Azimaddin. The defendants in the suit were the heirs of the aforesaid Azimaddin. The contesting de fendants' case was that Rukima Banu was not the married wife of Azimaddin and that, therefore, no dower was due from his estate to that lady or to her heirs.2. In the course of the suit the plaintiff No. 6 died and her heirs were substituted in her place and brought on the record as plaintiffs Nos. 6A and 6B. On behalf of the original plaintiffs three Pleaders were engaged, namely, Nabadwip Chandra Pandit, Durga Prasunna Mukhopadya and Abdul Majid. When the plaintiffs Nos. 6A and 6B appeared, they presented a second vakalutnama on which only the two junior Pleaders Abdul Majid and Babu Durga Prasunna...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »