Kolkata Court February 1920 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.
Sib Kumari Debi, Executrix to the Estate of Ram Gopal Chetlangia Vs. t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.425
1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the Assistant Settlement Officer imposed a fine of Rs. 50 on the petitioner and an order on appeal by the Settlement Officer affirming that order. The Assistant Settlement Officer purported to act under Order XVI, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code.2. It appears that a summons was served on the petitioner asking for certain information regarding a Touzi in which she owns an eight-annas share. The summons was served on the 28th May on an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner states that on the 29th May she sent an officer to the Assistant Settlement Officer, but he was told to go away on the ground that this was not the day for hearing the matter. In fact the 30th was the date fixed. Then a notice was issued on the petitioner to show cause why she should not be fined for not carrying out the order. The petitioner's officer showed cause, but he did so on paper which did not bear a Court fee. On the 10th June the order complained of was m...
Manmatha Nath Chatterjee Vs. Kshetra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.642
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the defendant, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree made by the Appellate Court should not be set aside as made without jurisdiction.2. The suit was one to recover a sum of Rs. 251 anna alleged to be due to the plaintiff as his share in money decreed to the plaintiff and defendant jointly, the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had realized the money and not paid him his share. The defence was that the money had been paid. The Munsif tried the suit under the regular procedure and dismissed it with costs.3. It is quite clear on the facts that this ought to have been tried as a Small Cause Court suit. The Munsif who tried the case was invested with Small Cause Court powers.4. However, the matter went on appeal. Nobody apparently noticed in the Appellate Court that the case ought to have been tried as a Small Cause Court suit and the Subordinate Judge reversed the Munsif's decision. Consequent...
Apurba Krishna Sett Vs. Rash Behari Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.880
Asutoch Mookerjee , J.1. This appeal raises the question, whether an application by the appellant to enforce a judgment of this Court, made in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, is or is not barred by limitation. The suit was instituted for the enforcement of a mortgage-security. On the 30th June 1804, the usual preliminary decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act was made. On the 26th January 1905, the Registrar submitted a report on the accounts, and the 18th August 1905 was fixed for re-payment. But the amount was not paid, and on the 22nd March 1907 an order absolute was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 89. It was, however, not till the 19th May 1919 that the representative of the decree holder (who had died in the meantime) applied to the Court to enforce his rights and real life his dues under the judgment. Mr. Justice Rankin has held that the application is barred by limitation.2. Article 183 of the Schedule to the Indian Li...
The Hon'ble Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur, K.C.S.i., K.C.i.E., I.O.M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.741
1. A Putni, belonging to the defendants other than the defendant No. 1, was sold by the defendant No. 1, the Maharaja of Burdwan, under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent. In due course, the Putnidars instituted a suit to have the sale set aside, and the sale was set aside in proceedings properly taken under Section 14 of the Putni Regulation. To those proceedings the plaintiffs, who had purchased the Putni at the sale, were made parties. In the decree made by the Court, it was directed that the Maharaja should refund to the present plaintiff who were the auction-purchasers the purchase-money which they had paid, amounting to Rs. 600 with interest. It was further directed that the original Putnidars were to recover possession of the property from the present plaintiffs with mesne profits. In that connection, there was an important direction in the judgment which the Court delivered. The amount of mesne profits, says the learned Subordinate Judge, 'will be asc...
Makhan Lal Saha and ors. Vs. Sarojendra Nath Sah Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.831
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a Rule was granted to the petitioners calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the present order should not be set aside and the matter re considered by the Munsif, allowing the petitioners to cross-examine the peon and to produce the documents which they had already produced.2. The matter arose in connection with an application by certain decree holders for sanction to prosecute the judgment-debtors and certain other persons who are alleged to have forcibly released certain properties that had been seized by a peon of the learned Munsif's Court on the strength of a writ of attachment issued in a money execution case, and also to have assaulted the peon and criminally intimidated him and the decree-holder's men. The matter first came before the learned Munsif, according to the record which is now before us, on the 31st of May 1919 when he directed that a notice should be issued upon the opposite parties dir...
Murlidhar Roy Vs. the Bengal Steamship Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.542
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. We are invited in this appeal to consider the propriety of an order dismissing a petition for the winding-up of a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The fasts are fully set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves and we need not recapitulate them.2. The application is supported here on three grounds, namely, first, that the Company has suspended its business for a whole year; secondly, that there has been a dead-look, and thirdly, that the substratum is gone; the first of these grounds falls within the third Clause of Section 162 and the second and third are comprised in the sixth Clause which provides for the winding-up of a Company if the Court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound-up.3. As regards the first of these grounds Mr. Justice Greaves has pointed out that the matter rests entirely in the discretion of the Court, as is clear from the decisions in Metropolitan Railway Warehousing Company...
Nando Lal Guha Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.862
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chairman of the Corporation and the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside or why such other order should not be made in the matter as may seem fit to this Court. The order complained of is dated the 20th of November 1919, and by that order the Municipal Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to a daily fine of eight annas for 30 days from the 16th of May 1916, that is, Rs. 15 in all, under Section 575 read with Section 299 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. III of 1899.2. The facts of this case are to my mind exceptional, and the decision at which we have arrived depends upon the exceptional facts of this cage and should not be taken as covering any other case in which the facts are different.3. It appears that the petitioner was convicted on the 28th of January 1916 for not having complied with the requisition which was served upon him in May 1915, requiring him to do certain things in...
Karamali Molla Vs. TamijuddIn Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.816
1. We think that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent that, in this case, there is no second appeal to this Court, must prevail.2. We have been asked to treat the appeal as an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, We do not think that this is a case in v. this Court should exercise its powers of revision, assuming that the orders of the lower Court are erroneous.3. The application to set aside the sale was made on deposit of the amount within 30 days' from the data of the sale. The amount deposited fell short by a few rupees of the amount of compensation due to the purchaser. This has, been found by both Courts to have been due to a mistake on the part of the Sheristadar who gave information to the petitioner, apparently according to the practice prevailing in that Court,, and also due to his mistake in checking the, Chalan. As soon as the mistake was found out, the deficit amount was deposited by the applicant. The property is said to be worth Rs. 4,000 and ...
DabiruddIn Joordar and ors. Vs. Midnapore Zemindary Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.850
Beachcroft, J.1. These appeals are by the tenants defendants in suits for rent. It appears that the rents were originally assessed in 1263. In 1314 there was a fresh measurement by the landlord and fresh rents were settled between the landlord and his tenants. Apparently rent was paid as agree upon for a few years but the rates of rent were contested by the tenants in the present suits which are for the years, 1322 and 1323. The defence taken was that the enhancement of rent contravened the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that in any case the rates fixed were not fair and equitable and consequently not recoverable, and in three of the appeals a further ground was taken in the lower Appellate Court that one of the defendants had died during the progress of the suit in the first Court and his heirs had not been substituted. These points have been repeated here.2. The first point argued is the second of these which I have mentioned, namely, that the enhanced rents are ...
Manulla Kolu and ors. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.811
Beachcroft, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants. The suit was one for khas possession. The plaintiff, who is the landlord, alleged that one Isa Sheikh, an occupancy raiyat, was the original tenant until 1319, that he then abandoned the holding and when the plaintiff went in 1320 to take khas possession, he was resisted by the defendant who alleged that he was a purchaser from Isa Sheikh. The holding in question was not a transferable one. The defence was that Isa had left the holding more than 12 years before the institution of the suit, the first defendant's wife having purchased the holding from him in 1311, and after her death the defendants, her heirs, possessed the land and paid rent to the landlord in the name of the old tenant, therefore, they were not liable to be ejected, and the suit was barred by limitation. Both Courts decreed the suit.2. The facts found are that Isa sold this holding 12 years and 3 weeks before the institution of the suit, the defendants and their predec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »