Kolkata Court March 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.
Nafar Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Sidhartha Krishna Mozumdar an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.255
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted by my learned brothers, Mr. Justice Chaudhari and Mr. Justice Newbould, calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The order complained of was dated the 11th of December 1919 and was made by Mr. Indu Bhushan Mullick, and the order was that the second party in certain proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure code, tried by the same Magistrate made was in favour of the first party and was dated the 2nd of June 1919. In the judgment which the Magistrate gave on the 2nd of June 1919 he made no order with regard to the question of costs. He gave no direction and his judgment did not deal with that question in any way at all. On the 13th of August, about two months and 28 days after the date of the judgment in the original case, the first party applied to the Magistrate for an order that the second party should pay the costs of the proceedings to the ...
Haramohan Poddar and anr. Vs. Sudarsan Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal538,66Ind.Cas.811
1. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of a partnership, for winding up its business, for taking the accounts and for incidental reliefs. The case for the plaintiff is that there were two lets of partner?, sailed respectively capitalist partners and Gomasta partners. The first class included the plaintiff, the first defendant and the fathers of the second and third defendants, who were to provide the capital, receive a share of the profits and hear the leases in stated proportions. The second class included the remaining six defendants who were to receive specified shares of the profits as remuneration for their labour, hut had no concern with the looses. The business was carried on in rice, jute and other articles and also included mercy lending. The firm was started in 185 JA; and the first defendant has ever since acted as the managing partner. According to the plaintiff, the business has not been properly managed fo...
Prafulla Nath Tagore and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.29
1. The litigations which have culminated in these two appeals were commenced by the appellants against the Secretary of State for India in Council, for declaration that the disputed lands in each suit were included in permanently settled estates held by them, that they were not liable to be assessed, as they have been assessed, with revenue by the Collector under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, 1847, and for consequential reliefs. The defence of the Secretary of State in substance was that the disputed lands were not settled with the predecessors of the plaintiffs at the time of the Permanent Settlement and that they lay, at that time, in the bed of public tidal navigable rivers. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suits on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the lands were included in the permanently settled estates held by them, and that consequently the proceedings for assessment of revenue could not be deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. The concl...
Pramatha Nath Barat Vs. Rai P.C. Lahiri Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.37
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The order complained of was an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate by which he acquitted the accused, Rai Bahadur Purno Chandra Lahiri, under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts which it seems to me are necessary for the purpose of my judgment are set out in the report of the case Pramatha Nath v. P.C. Lahiri 54 Ind. Cas. 63 : 46 C. 581 : 21 Cr. L.J. 15 which appears in Indian Law Reports, 46 Calcutta, page 581, and I need not repeat them. That is a report of the hearing of a Rule which had been obtained by Promotha Nath Barat on behalf of his brother Provat Nath Barat. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate had dismissed the complaint made against the accused person under Section 203 of the Code. Then the Rule was obtained: upon the hearing of the Rule the learned Advocate-General said that he could not support the order and, furthe...
Ramesh Chandra Mitter Vs. Jogini Mohan Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.946
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Chaudhuri on an application under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act for the removal of the name of the respondent from the Register of Members of a Company known as the Bengal C., Ltd.2. On the 19th June 1915 the respondent agreed to purchase six ordinary shares of the Company on the understanding, that he would be elected as one of its Special Directors. On the same date he paid Rs. 1.000 for the six shares, which were issued to him two days later. On the 27th June 1915 the appellant entered into an agreement with the Company for a first charge, to the extent of Rs. 10,000, on all uncalled share capital; he advanced Rs. 5,000, on the same day and the balance was paid on the 11th January, 1916. The mortgage instrument, which was executed by the Company in favour of the appellant on the 21st March 1916, referred specifically to thirty ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each, six ordinary shares, class 'A', of Rs....
Dasarathy Sinha Vs. Mahamulya Ash
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.977
Rankin, J.1. This is a suit brought in February 1917 by Dasarathy Sinha, who claims to be entitled to an undivided eight annas interest in certain premises in Calcutta, known as, No. 21, Harodhone Lane. The plaintiff's claim is made on these lines. He says that these premises belonged at one time to a joint Hindu family of which Jitram Rakhit and Ramsabek Rakhit were the members. The plaintiff has sat out the various steps in his title, but these do rot concern the present question until we come down to a conveyance, dated the 1st December 1911, from one Srimanto Kumar Datt to one Joygopal Pal. It appears that Joygopal had a vesting order made against him on two occasions under the Indian Insolvency Ant, being the Imperial Statute 11 & 12 Victoria, Chapter 21 of 1848. According to the admissions made by the plaintiff's witnesses, and according to the original documents produced, the orders were made on the following dates, the first in the 2nd December 1899 and the second on the 4th Ma...
Radha Rani Dasi Vs. Doyal Chand Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal785,62Ind.Cas.222
Asutosh Mookeree, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Fletcher, and raises the question whether a turn of worship of three family deities is capable of inheritance by the sonless widow of a male member of the family, The idols are of considerable antiquity and were established by one Krishta Das Mullick in the early years of the eighteenth century.2. On the 30th July 1368, Mr. Justice Norman, in a litigation between some members of the family, held it established upon the evidence that according to a custom of descent prevalent in that family, a widow without male issue did not take by inheritance her husband's right to a turn of worship. This conclusion was based on numerous instances of exclusion of widows without male issue, and was affirmed on appeal by Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J., and Mr. Justice Macpherson on the 12th January 1869. As pointed out by this Court in the case of Mahamaya Debi v. Haridat Haldar 27 Ind. Cas. 400 : 42...
D.N. Shaha and Co. Vs. the Bengal National Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal302,60Ind.Cas.940
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Fletcher in a suit for recovery of money due on a promissory-note.2. On the 28th August 1912, the defendant arm executed a promissory-note in favour of B.N. Das and Co. in the following terms:On demand I promise to pay to B.N. Das and Company or order the sum of Rs. 2,500 only, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till the date of realisation, for value received in cash.3. On or about the 10th January 1914 B. N. Das & Co, for valuable consideration, endorsed the promissory-note in favour of the plaintiff Bank. Notice was duly given by the plaintiff Bank to the defendant first, but as no payment was made in response to repeated demand, the Bank instituted this suit on the 27th August 1915. The defendant firm urged that the Bank were not bona fide holders in due course and for value, and that the note had been discharged by the firm before the endorsement...
Roy Jatindra Nath Chowdhury and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for In ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.778
1. This appeal arises cat of an action brought by the plaintiffs against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that certain lands on the banks of the rivers Baleswar and Sapleza in the District of Backergunge in respect of which Government revenue has been assessed under the provisions of Act IX of 1847, are within the ambit of Mahal Dabnathpore, which is held by the plaintiffs under the Government on certain terms and conditions mentioned in Exhibits 3 and H, dated the 19th November 1856, and the 9th April 1870, respectively, and for a declaration chat the proceeding s undertaken by the defendant for the assessment of the said revenue are illegal, and for various other reliefs mentioned in the plaint. The defendant by his written statement alleged that the suit was barred by limitation and that the lands in question which had not been let out by Government had been formed out of the beds of the two rivers mentioned above, described as large tidal public nagviga...
Sarojini Dasi Vs. Rajlakshmi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.974
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the objectors against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Dacca, dated the 19th July 1918, directing Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed of one Rabat Mohan Saha Biswas to issue to the petitioner. Dr. Basak, who appears for the appellants, with his customary fairness admits that, having regard to the opinion of the learned Judge expressed in his judgment with reference to the oral evidence, it would not be possible for him to challenge the findings arrived at by the Court below. That is obviously so. The Judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and examining their demeanour and, on a consideration of the facts, he arrived at a definite conclusion as to the Credibility of the witnesses. That finding cannot be displaced. But the point that has been raised in support of the appeal is this: there was an executor named in the Will, The general citation went to the executor to be made a pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »