Kolkata Court April 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.
Krishna Mohan Banerjee and anr. Vs. A.K. Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.829
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order purporting to be made under Section 137, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The circumstances are as follows:--The first petitioner has an iron yard in Howrah and the second petitioner is his employee. The Principal of a Training School near the yard complained to the District Magistrate that an intolerable noise was made in the yard. After a Police enquiry the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a notice under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the petitioners to abate the nuisance or to show cause against the order. They did show cause, and they did not ask for the appointment of a Jury, so the Magistrate dealt with the matter under Section 137, and as he was not satisfied that the order was not reasonable he made the order absolute.3. The Rule was issued on three grounds, and they are in effect that the noise is not in fact a nuisance, that it is made in carrying on a lawful trade, and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction...
Bati Ram Kolita and ors. Vs. Sibram Das and anr. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal271,61Ind.Cas.405
1. The plaintiffs-respondents brought this suit for a declaration that a certain road was a village road for the URO of the public in general, and for an order directing the clearance of the obstruction of the road by removing from it the Namghar created by the defendants. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the finding that the road in question was a public read and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any special damage which was necessary in order to give them a cause of action; on appeal the learned Judge has held that the plaintiffs have proved sufficient special damage to give them a right to sue, but has remanded the case for a re-hearing after adding certain other parties as defendants.2. We think this appeal must succeed on the ground that the finding that the appellants had proved special damage cannot be sustained. The nature of the special damage which must be proved in order to give a private person the right to sue for the obstruction of a public road is ...
Hem Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. Kristo Chandra Saha Sardar on His Death ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.879
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 9th October 1917. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a hat known as the Ramchandradi hat, in the sense that the hat is held within a revenue estate belonging to him and that he derives certain profits from it. The Sardar defendants are neighbouring proprietors and, in February, 1 12, they set up a new hat at Gopaldi, within two miles of the plaintiff's hat. There is some controversy as to the details of the circumstances in which the new hat came to be established. The main facts, however, are not in dispute. In the plaintiff's hat, the right of collecting the dues payable by the stall-holders was farmed out to Ijaradars. One of these Ijaradars was Govinda Chandra Dhur Amongst the people who had stalls were a number of Jugis, or cloth sellers, of whom some are co-defendants with the Sardars in this suit. It appears that the Jugis felt themselves aggrieved because the Ijaradar Govinda was coll...
Haladhar Mitra Chowdhuri Vs. Prafulla Nath Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.892
1. These two appeals are against orders rejecting applications to set aside two sales held in execution of decrees for rent.2. The judgment-debtor held certain Mouzahs under the decree-holder, half by virtue of Patni right and the other half by virtue of Dar-patni right, and his Patni and Dar patni interests in these Mouzahs have been sold in execution of rent decrees obtained against him.3. The question that has to be decided is whether there has been material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale and also whether the judgment-debtor has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. We must hold with the Subordinate Judge that the judgment debtor has failed to. prove substantial injury which would justify the setting aside of the sales even if there was any material irregularity. The two properties were valued in the sale proclamation at Rs. 20,000 each. The Patni interest was sold for Rs. 30,000 and the DAR patni interest for Rs. 26,000. T...
Abdul Karim Dhali Vs. Nur Mohammed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.907
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Backerganj reversing the order passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court of Bhola, in an execution proceeding. The appellant is the decree-holder. On the 7th April 1914 he brought a suit in the Small Cause Court and on the same day he applied for attachment of the judgment debtor's property before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. The Court directed notice to show cause on or before the date of hearing why the property mentioned in the petition should not be attached and in the meantime the property mentioned in the petition be attached conditionally. No cause was shown and no other order in this matter was passed during the pendency of the suit, which was decreed on the 22nd September 1915. On the 2nd April 1918 the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree and during the pendency of these proceedings on the 4th July 1918 he also prayed that the order for conditional attachment should...
Tikam Chand Santokchand Vs. Santokchand Singhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.218
Rankin, J.1. This case is a somewhat difficult one but I am convinced on the whole that the two cases which Mr. Sen has sited to me are applicable to the facts as I understand them. I think the case reported in Hyman v. Helm (1883) 24 Ch. D. 531 : 49 L.T. 376 : 32 W.R. 258 and the case in which that case was referred to, reported in Vardopulo v. Vardopulo (1909) 25 T.L.R. 518 : 63 S.J. 469, are very strong authorities in favour of Mr. Sen's contentions.2. The application before me is to restrain the defendant before decree from commencing or, rather, from prosecuting an action in a foreign Court about the same subject matter. The first point 1 notice is that the application is entirely late. The action in Bikanir has been going on for a considerable time and I think it is an essential condition of such an order as I am asked to make that it should be applied for very promptly and that it should not be applied for after a considerable amount of time and trouble has been expended in the ...
Hrishikesh Das and anr. Vs. Lal Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.890
1. This Rule arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff opposite party in the year 1917 for dissolution of partnership and for amounts. In that suit the plaintiff made an application for the appointment of a Receiver. The Subordinate Judge, in whose Court the suit was then pending, declined to appoint a Receiver but made an order directing the defendant to furnish security in the sum of ten thousand rupees. Against that order both parties applied to this Court and obtained Rules. At the hearing of the rules the parties same to terms and agreed that all matters in dispute in the suit should be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be nominated by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants, and in that petition they further proceeded to nominate their respective Pleaders as their appointed arbitrators. The arrangement that they entered into, there being minors concerned, recieved the sanction of the Court on the 13th March 1918, and it was directed that a copy of t...
Kala Nath Barman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.929
Walmsley, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:--A man named Niasha Bairagi informed the Police on April 28th that he and his mother and his sister Rangamoyi had been living in the house of Kala Nath Burman, the first petitioner, but on that day were leaving it to go to the house of a man of their own caste, when Kala Nath and the other petitioners carried off Rangamoyi by force. He asserted that Rangamoyi was less than sixteen years old. The girl could not be found but the petitioners were placed on their trial, and during the trial the girl was recovered. Four of the petitioners were charged with kidnapping a minor girl under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, and also with rioting under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, the common object being set out as to kidnap Rangamoyi. The fifth man, Padma Nath, was charged only under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.2. The learned Magistrate found that Rangamoyi was not proved to be under sixteen years, and he, therefore, held that the charge ...
D.E.D.J. Ezra Vs. J.E. Gubbay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.969
Rankin, J.1. This suit was instituted on the 7th July 1919 by lessor against lessee for recovery of possession of certain premises upon the determination of the term by forfeiture for breach of conditions in the lease. The suit was contested by the lessee unsuccessfully, and an order for recovery of possession was made on 8th December 1919, by which the lessee was given until the 29th February 1920, to make over possession, This not being done, an order, dated 12th March 1920, was obtained by the lessor directing the Sheriff to put him into possession, The Sheriff, on the 8sh April 1920, was obstructed in the execution of this order by a Mrs. Wallace who is respondent to the present application made by the lessor before me as the Judge in Clambers.2. Mr. Pugh, who appears for Mrs. Wallace, admits that his alien, holds as a tenant under the defendant in the suit. He does not file any affidavit on her behalf; but he says that she was in possession as under tenant before the suit was inst...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Profulla Nath Tagore a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.896
Richardson, J.1. In this case the Revenue Authorities assessed to revenue certain lands within the ambit of the estate of which the respondents are the proprietors. The respondents have succeeded below in a suit brought by them to contest the validity of the assessment and to recover possession of the lands, and an appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Secretary of State.2. The lands in question were, at the lime of the Thak and Revenue surveys of 1859 and 1860, the bed of a done or river known in one part as the Lakshipura and in other parts, apparently, by the names of the villages by or through which it flowed. The river was part of a net work of rivers and channels connected ultimately with the main stream of the Ganges, Whatever else may be said about this river, it is a fundamental fact in the case that it never was a public navigable river. The fast is asserted in the plaint and is not denied in the written statement. There is no express issue on the subject and the Subordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »