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.
In Re: Lalbihari Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal776,60Ind.Cas.889
Greaves, J.1. This matter comes before me by way of an appeal from a decision. Of the Insolvency Registrar of this Court. The facts are shortly as follows: On the 23rd July 1914 Lalbehari Shah and others were adjudicated insolvents upon the petition of a creditor, one Motilal Boid. He was a creditor for Rs. 6,4,000, and he filed a retainer through an Attorney Mr. S.M. Dutt to represent him in the insolvency proceedings. Motilal Boid is the father of the present appellants before me. He died on the 29th February 1913 leaving him surviving his widow, Panni Bible, and the appellants his infant sons. He also left a brother Dhonraj Boid. On the 7th August, 1916 an application was made by the brother as next friend of the infants for examination of certain witnesses under Section 36 of the Insolvency Act, The retainer was signed by him and he made an affidavit that he had no interest adverse to the infants. He signed as next lend and the retainer that he gave to his Attorney was in respect o...
Mrs. Winifred Mcquillan Vs. Mrs. Winifred Chapman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.13
1. The parties to this appeal are mother and daughter. Each applied to the District Judge to be appointed guardian of the child of the younger woman, a girl born on the 25th December 1912. The petitions were heard together, with the result that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the child's mother, Mrs. McQuillan, had been behaving in a manner in which no respectable married woman should, and that the interests of the child would be best protected by her being placed under the guardianship of Mrs. Chapman, her grandmother. The latter person has accordingly been appointed guardian and against this order Mrs. McQuillan prefers the present appeal.2. The learned Judge rightly observes that the case is an exceedingly painful one and deplores the fact that that such a case should have come before a Court of Justice. At the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the parties we have ourselves endeavored to induce the parties to come to terms. Our efforts have produced no useful resul...
Aziz Khan and ors. Vs. Srijukta Sarajubala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.430
Beachcroft, J.1. This appeal is by the tenant defendants and it arises out of a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The landlord sought to enhance rent on three grounds, increase of area, rise in prices of food crops and increase in the productive power of the soil by reason of fluvial action. The Courts have given enhancement of rent on the first two grounds. The learned Special Judge was not in a position to find what was the area of the holding at the inception of the tenancy. But he has found that in the year 1309 it was less than what it has been found to be in the recent survey and settlement proceedings but the rent was the same then as it is now. On that finding he has upheld the decision of the Settlement Officer.2. The ground taken in appeal here is that unless the Court is in a position to find what the area was at the inception of the tenancy, it cannot under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act give any enhancement on the ground of increase in area of t...
Shaikh Amjad and anr. Vs. Shaikh Hasrat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.628
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in a Small Cause Court suit on a bond. There were three defendants, and the learned Judge has found that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 executed the bond and decreed the suit against them. As regards the first defendant he was not satisfied that the thumb mark which was said to be his on the bond corresponded with his thumb mark which was taken in Court, and, therefore, he was not prepared to hold that he was one of the parties who executed the bond. In the petition presented to this Court it was stated that of the three defendants only defendant No. 1 was examined and that the other two were not examined, because the Court remarked that their examination was unnecessary. The Small Cause Court Judge was asked to report on this allegation, and he states that it was not true that he remarked that the examination of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was not necessary. With regard to that statement of the learned Small Cau...
Prasanna Kumar Shaha Vs. Lal Mian
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.669
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the decree-holder. Part of the decree had been satisfied and on the 22nd August 1917 he took out execution for the balance of the decree, amounting to Rs. 162 and odd. The writ of attachment was issued, but when the Court peon same to serve it, it appears that be was told that part of the money had been paid and the decree-holder not wishing to proceed with the execution the writ was returned unserved. That was on the 13th December 1917 and on the 22nd of that month the execution case was dismissed for want of prosecution. On the 28th May 1918 the decree-holder applied for execution for the sum of Rs. 95-10 annas, stating that Rs. 73 had been paid on a previous occasion. That execution case was No. 978 of 1918. On the 18th January 1919 the judgment-debtor instituted a miscellanious case No. 23 of 1919, alleging that the whole of the decree had been satisfied by payment of Rs. 85 on the 6th December 1917. His case is that Rs. 70 h...
Ram Kissen Joydoyal Vs. Pooran Mull and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.571
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings before the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Tribunal of Arbitration. The plaintiffs instituted this suit for declaration that they did not enter into the contract No. 128 with the defendant dated the 13th December 1916, that the contract is not binding on them and that they are accordingly entitled to an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceedings to arbitration pursuant to the usual arbitration clause contained in the contract. The defendants traversed all the material allegations in their written statement. The only issue raised in the Court below was whether the plaintiffs were liable on the contract. Mr. Justice Greaves, on the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not enter into the contract and that the same was not binding on them; he accordingly granted an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the...
Jaharmal-debi Dutta Firm Vs. Birinchi Bhusan Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.941
Teunon, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Additional Subordinate Judge of Pabna, acting under the Second schedule, rule 12, of the Code of Civil Procedure has modified an award made by an arbitrator.2. The suit in which he award was made was one for dissolution of a partnership business and for accounts. It appears that the plaintiff's firm, who are primarily dealers in articles of various sorts, entered into an arrangement with the defendant for the purpose of carrying on building contracts. The firm was to supply the money and the defendant was to manage the business. The plaintiff's firm not only advanced the money for the business of their partner-ship contrasts but also advanced money to the defendant for his own purposes. After the suit had proceeded for sometime the parties agreed to refer the matter in arbitration and five points were set out for the decision of the arbitrator selected. The 5th of those points is 'whether the defendant is liable to the ...
Bejoy Singh Hazari Vs. Srimati Mathuriya Debya, Widow of RamdIn Hazari ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.97
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff seeks for a declaration that as the adopted son of one Ramdin he is entitled to an eight-annas share of certain properties situated in the District of Chittagong and for a further declaration that the defendant No. 6 has not been validly adopted to Ramdin by the latter's widow. The plaintiff also seeks to set aside a consent decree in a previous suit to which he was a party as a minor represented by his father.2. The Subordinate Judge has arrived at the following conclusions: (1) that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of Ramdin;(2) that Ramdin's widow had no authority to adopt a son and that the adoption by her of the defendant No. 6 is, therefore, invalid; and(3) that the plaintiff is bound by the con-sent decree.3. In the appeal before us (No. 1.51) the plaintiff appeals from the first and third of these findings.4. The defendant No. 6 has also preferred an appeal (No. 145), the hearing of which we deferred at the insta...
Raja Promotha Bhusan Deb Roy Bahadur Vs. Narendra Bhusan Roy and on Hi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.932
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent of a dar mourashi tenure, the rent being claimed at Rs. 238 annas 12 a year.2. The main defense was that there was dispossession of a portion of the tenancy and that, therefore, there should be a suspension of the rent.3. It appears that a dar mourashi lease was executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the father of the defendant No. 1 on the 15th Jane 1865. The lease comprised six properties, one of them being a jama, of Rs. 16 and described as Hat Salika appertaining to Gjurmani's jama. The plaintiff's father was the putnidar of Lot Harishpur within which Hat Salika was included. On the same day, 15th June 1865, the plaintiff's father gave a dar-paint lease in respect of Harishpur to the father of the defendant No. 1. This darpatni right, however, was re-conveyed to the plaintiff on the 9th August 1905. On the 7th April 1909, the darmaurashi interest was conveyed by the defendant No. 1 to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3.4. It appears th...
Sailesh Chandra Bose and anr. Vs. Umesh Chandra Rudra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.574
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a portion of a rote under the following circumstances.2. An occupancy holding belonged to one Jamir. The defendants NOS. 7 to 10 are the heirs of Jamir. They sold a portion of the holding to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 21st June 1907. The former (defend ants Nos. 7 to 10) then surrendered that portion of the holding which they had sold to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. This surrender was in favour of some of the landlords who bad a two-thirds share of the land lord's interest in the howla. It appears that the defendants Nos. 7 to 10 also put in a petition of surrender in respect of the share of the landlord owning a 1/3rd share in the howla but the latter did not accept the surrender. On the 19th October 1913 the plaintiffs who, are the respondents before ns, took a neemhowla lease from the landlords owning a 2/3rds share and they brought the suit for ejectment of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the portion of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »