Kolkata Court June 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.
Emperor Vs. Saberali Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.826
1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, made by the Sessions Judge of Rajshahye.2. The accused Sabar Ali Sarkar was charged under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, together with two others, Baroda Sundari and Mohir Khan, the two latter having been charged under Section 364/109, Indian Penal Code. They were tried by a Jury and the Jury having found that Baroda and Mohir were not guilty and the Judge having accepted their verdict, they were acquitted. So far as Saber Ali is concerned, the Jury found him guilty under Section 323 but the learned Judge, disagreeing with them on the point and being of opinion that the case o Saber Ali same under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, has referred the case to this Court.3. The substance of the prosecution case appears to be as follows:Baroda was the kept mistress of the accused Saber Ali and the deceased. Ohir Sonar, a co villager, was found in the house of Baroda, it being alleged that he was there for the purpose of having...
Satyaranjan Sen Gupta Vs. Mohammad Sarfaraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.819
1. This is a reference by Mr. Seaton, Sessions Judge of Chittagong, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, in a case arising under Section 41 of the Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The accused were convicted under the Chittagong River Rules made under the Forest Act and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.2. It appears that the petitioners' master, the Neptune Tea Estate, obtained a lease in fee simple of a certain tract of waste and forest land from the Government and the petitioners, who were the labourers and tenants of the tea estate, were carrying some bamboos from one portion of the estate to another by the river Kala Pania. They were prosecuted for non-payment of royalty under Rule 2 of the River Rules for the Ghittagong Hill Tracts framed under Section 41 of Act VII of 1878. That rule runs as follows:'All timber or forest produce which is brought down by the rivers passing out of the Chittagong H...
Jnanendra Krishna Bose Vs. Sinclair Murray Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal255,66Ind.Cas.741
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland on an application under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, for stay of a suit.2. It appears that on the 3rd July 1919, the appellant, J. K. Base, gold certain goods to the respondents, Sinclair Murray & Co. On the same date, there was a sale of the identical goods by Sinclair Murray, & Co. to D. L. Millar & Co. Subsequently, disputes arose between Sinclair Murray & Co. and D. L. Millar & Co., with the result that there was a reference to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contrast between those parties. This reference resulted in an award for a large sum of money in favour of D. L. Millar & Co. against Sinclair Murray & Co. Sinclair Murray & Co. thereupon claimed to recover from J. K. Bose the sum whish they had been made liable to pay to D. L. Millar & Co. On this J. K. Base instituted the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,530 from Sinclair M...
Provash Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Jahar-ud-dIn Mondal and on His Death Hi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.49
1. The fasts from which this appeal arises are as follows: one Ekim Molla had three Jamas; he died about 1290 B.S. leaving; a widow, Bibijan, and two daughters: the daughters died before their mother: one of them, Arifa left a son, Gafur, who survived his grandmother. Bibijan died in 1309. In 1907 the landlord brought a rent suit for the rent of the three jamas against Gafar alone, and obtained a decree, and in execution of that decree he caused the jamas to be sold and bought them himself in January 1908 after which he granted settlement to various tenants.2. One of the plaintiffs is a sister, Bibijan, and the other plaintiffs are the sons of a second sister. They claim to be the heirs of Bibijan: they say that Gafur did not inherit any interest in the jamas, and that the decree against him only had no effect so far as they are concerned.3. The first defendant, the appellant, is the landlord. The other defendants are tenants to whom the landlord granted settlement after his purchase: ...
Nilratan Mitra and ors. Vs. Abdul Gofur Gaze and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.3
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of Khas possession of certain land and for ejectment of the defendants therefrom. The case of the plaintiffs was that the holding or tenure, in question was not transferable and that the defendants, who were transferees from two tenants, Kheraj and Jeraddi, were trespassers. The case of the defendants was that their vendors had a mourasi mokarari interest in the land and this case they based upon a patta said to have been granted by the plaintiff No. 1 to the father of one of the vendors, namely, Kheraj, on 27th Baisakh 1269, corresponding with May 1862 With regard to this patta the plaintiff's contention was that it was not genuine. In the Court of first instance the decision was in (sic) of the plaintiffs. In the Court of first appeal it has been held that the patta of 1269 is genuine and that, by the express terms of this patta, the interest, of the lessees is transferable.2. In the appeal before us the plain...
Matiwor Rasuk (Rasul in Vakalutnana) Alikar Rasul and ors. Vs. Dhanu M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.963
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of khas possession of certain parcels of land on declaration of their title thereto. The two suits bore Nos, 2284 and 2490 of 1913. In each suit the subject-matter consisted of four plots or parcels of land. Both the Courts below have found that in Suit No. 2490 plots Nos. 2 to 4 and part of plot No. 1 and in Suit No. 2284 plots Nos. 2 and 4 and parts of plots Nos. 1 and 3 appertain to plaintiff's state Dighirpar. That is a finding of fact which has not been challenged before us.2. The next question that arose in the suits was the question of limitation. In the Court of first instance it was held that, in respect of the plots over which the plaintiffs' title bad be in established, there was no bar of limitation, the finding of the Court of first instance being that the adverse possession of the defendants bad begun in the 1309. In the Court of first appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the...
Sourendra Mohan Sinha Vs. Murari Lal Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal222,59Ind.Cas.581
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Beachcroft on exceptions to a report of the Assistant Referee disallowing the claim of the appellant against the estate of his grand-uncle which is the subject-matter of an administration suit on the Original Side of this Court. The facts material for the determination of the question raised before us may he briefly narrated by reference to the annexed genealogical table: Narottam (d. 1225), ___________________________________|_________________________________________ | | | | | | Sonatan, Adwaita, Manick, Sree Kanto, Sadhu Charan, Baishnab Charan, (d. 1230), (d. 1271), (d. 1273), (d. 1260), (d. 1248), (d. 1252), | | | | | | Satyabhama, Bankulal, Rakhal Das, Chundilal, Raj Kristo, | (d. 1276), (d. 1283), (d. 1232), (d. 1313), (d. 1302), | | | | | | |Bepin Behary Dutt. | Kali Das Sarala, | Nritya Gopal. | | (d. 1301), | | | | | | | | | ___________| _________| Sourendra | _________|_______ ________|_______...
Hurmukhroy Ram Chunder Vs. the Japan Cotton Trading Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.342
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves, in which he has held, on an application by the respondents, that the award made against them by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Tribunal on the 18th July 1919, at the instance of the appellant, is null and void. The contract between the parties was made on the 1st August 1918 for the sale of '19 bales of sheeting No. 3841, 36 inches by 38 yards at Rs. 19-12-0 per piece; shipment November and December 1918, delivery within 60 days from the date of arrival, payment casb, 2 months' late shipment accepted.'2. The contract contained an arbitration clause in these terms: 'Any dispute as to damage, difference, inferiority, short quantity or measure or defeat or amount of allowance to be referred, at seller's option, to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce or other Arbitration Tribunal as specified thereunder.' The question of the true scope of this clause came up for consideration by this Court in ...
Manindra Chandra Nandy and ors. Vs. Aswini Kumar Acharyya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal185,60Ind.Cas.337
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rankin in a suit for recovery of money The plaintiff-respondent makes his claim in connection with a contract, dated the 22nd December, 19.5, entered into by the defendants with the Corporation of Calcutta for the supply of stone metal. The plaintiff was not a party to this contrast, but his case is that the defendants agreed to pay him, (1) a sum of Rs. 20,000 if he could secure acceptance pf their offer by the Corporation, and defrayed, at his own risk, the preliminary expenses in connection therewith; (2) brokerage at two annas for every hundred cubic feet of stone metal delivered to the Corporation during the subsistence of the contract, and (3) two-fifths share of the profits of the business which was to be placed under his management for the same period. The plaintiff alleges that he was paid Rs. 5,000 by way of preliminary expenses, but has received nothing under the other two heads. The contract...
Mohendra Nath Maiti Vs. Parameswar Samanta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.439
Buckland, J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether or not on the 6th of April when the land in question was sold by the second defendant to the first defendant there was a suit pending go as to introduce the operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the register it appears that the plaint was actually registered under Order IV, Rule 2, as if it had been admitted on the 9th April, It is not clear what occurred in connection with the in sufficiency of the Court-fee, but if the Munsif returned the plaint actually to the plaintiff and then allowed him five days within which to present it again with the additional Court fee, such order does not appear to be strictly in accordance with Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, we accept what we find in the register of suits. In consequence, there was no lis pendens on the date that is the 6th of April. In the circumstances, we reverse the judgment of the learned Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »