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.
In Re: Mukunda Lal Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.831
1. This is an application by one Mukund Lal Dhar for renewal of his certificate as a Pleader. He was enrolled as a Pleader on the 19th July 1907 and his certificate was renewed in the year following. He subsequently obtained an appointment in the Police service under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Administration and on his own application the following order was made by this Court on the 25th January 1909: 'The High Court is pleased, under Rule 32 of the rules relating to Legal Practitioners, to suspend him from practising as a Pleader for the period during which he may be employed under Government. It will be open to him to apply for permission to resume practice when he relinquishes that employment. Renewal of certificates during the period of suspension is not necessary.' On the 9th January 1920 the petitioner was discharged from Police service. On the 17th February 1920 be forwarded an application to this Court through the District Judge of Dacca for renewal of his certificate, so th...
Madhu Mangal Sadhu Vs. Gour Sundar Swarnakar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.733
1. This appeal arises rut of a suit open a mortgage-bond and the oily question relates to the rate of interest.2. The rate stipulated in the bond was Rs. 28, annas 2 per cent, per annum with year]; rests. The Courts below have allowed simple interest at 12 per cent.3. The principal amount was Rs. 60 and it swelled up to Rs. 1,770,annas ll, with interest at the bond-rate, The plaintiff laid his claim at Rs. 599, after giving up Rs. 1,770, annas 11. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed interest at the bold rate, because there was ample security for the loan and the stipulation as to interest was harsh and unconscionable.5. But, as pointed out in the recent Privy Council decision in Aziz Khan v. Luni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) 'it is difficult for a Court of Justine to give relief on grounds of simple hardship in the cadence of ary evidence to show that the money lender bad unduly taken advantage of his position even when the tra...
Nibaran Chandra Haldar Vs. Parbati Charan Naskar and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.454
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit lo enforce a mortgage security. In the Court of first instance it was pleaded that a deposit had been made under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court overrated the contention that the deposit was valid, because it found that the service of notice on the mortgagee had not been proved. The Court thereupon made a decree for the principal sum with interest at a reduced rate. Upon appeal, the District Judge has allowed interest at the contract rate up to the date of suit. It is not necessary, however, to investigate whether the Court was competent to restrict interest at the contract rate up to the date of suit only, because we are of Opinion that the view taken by the Court of first instance as to the scope of Sections 83 and 84 is erroneous.2. Section 83 contemplates a deposit to satisfy the mortgage. Section 84 provides that 'when the mortgagor or such other person as aforesaid has......
Hemanta Kumar Bhaduri Vs. Sudhangsu Gobind Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal175,62Ind.Cas.436
1. One Gopal Gobinda Choudhury by his Will made provision for the payment of Rs. 25 per month to his brother Kunja Lal if he was alive at the death of the testator and if he was dead, his sons were to get maintenance from the estate for their lives. Kunja Lal received maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 so long as he was alive and on his death, his sons used to get the maintenance. it was, however, red used by consent from Rs. 25 to Rs. 15 and subsequently by a compromise decree it was farther reduced to Rs. 10 per month. By this compromise it was agreed that the plaintiff and his brother Kali Kumar would get Rs. 10 per month but that if the defendant did not make punctual payment for four consecutive months, then he would be liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 15 per month. Kali Kumar having died, the plaintiff sought to recover the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15.2. The Court of First Instance gave him a decree at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has...
E.H. Ducasse Vs. E.M.D. Cohen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal99,60Ind.Cas.105
Ghose, J.1. (sic) Ducasse for the determination of the following questions, namely, whether, upon the true construction of the Indenture of lease mentioned in the plaint herein, relating to premises No. 4, Madge Lane, in the town of Calcutta, commonly known as trees Grand Opera House, and in the circumstances mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to assign the remainder of the term under the said lease to the Bijou Limited without the consent of the defendant E.M.D. Cohen, and whether the defendant should not, pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings.2. It appears that by an Indenture of Lease, dated 2nd March 1917, the premises known as the Grand Opera House were demised to the plaintiff for a period of five years, commencing from the 1st April 1917, on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said lease.3. Among other conditions it was provided by (he said Indenture that the plaintiff would not assign, underlet or otherwise dispose' of the said Grand Ope...
Kali Mahmud Talukdar and ors. Vs. Dina Bandhu Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.502
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage.2. It appears that the predecessors of the defendants Nos. 3 to 10 mortgaged certain properties to the defendant No. 1 in the year 1892. the plaintiff, in execution of a money decree upon a simple bond, purchased a portion of the properties mortgaged on the 29th September 1896 and obtained delivery of possession thereof on the 23rd January 1897. Subsequently the defendant No. 1 brought a suit upon his mortgage but did not make the plaintiff a party to the suit. He obtained an ex parte decree on the mortgage on the 5th February 1897 and in execution purchased the properties on the 2nd February 19 9. He obtained delivery of possession of the properties in 1899 and the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant No. 1 of the properties purchased by him. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 subsequently got the ex parte decree and sale held thereunder set aside on the 21st November 1908, and the suit was thereafter tried and a decree ...
Samsul Nehar Bibi Vs. Moulvi Mohiud-din-ahmad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal225,59Ind.Cas.355
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. These are two appeals by the two defendants in a suit for recovery of joint possession of land and for partition after such recovery.2. The title of the plaintiff is based upon a gift from the true owner, dated the 7th September 1915. It has been found that, at the time when the gift was made, the owner was not in possession as he had been dispossessed by the first defendant who held adversely to him. The question for consideration is, whether, in these circum-stances, the plaintiff acquired a good title under the Muhammadan Law.3. The Subordinate Judge has held that as the proprietor could transfer only an actionable claim, the gift of that actionable claim was valid because possession of the claim in question could not actually be transferred; in other words, that under such a gift the plaintiff has become entitled to recover the property in the same way as the original owner might have done. In our opinion, this conclusion is based upon an erroneous ...
Sashi Bhusan Bose and ors. Vs. Parasulla Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.721
1. This appeal arisess out of a suit for rent. The question for the Court below was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get rent at the rate of Rs. 103-6-6 or, as asserted by the defendant, at the rate of half that sum year by year. According to the plaintiffs they were the sole landlords of the holding. According to the defendant one Kangali Fakir, spoken of in the Court of first appeal as Fatik, was a co-sharer of the plaintiffs and the share of the plaintiffs was, therefore, 8 annas only. The rent suit was brought on the 29th April 1916, and was for the rent of the years 1320, 1321 and 1322, corresponding roughly with April 1914 to April 1916. The suit was decided on the 13th June 1917. It next appears that Kangali brought a suit against the plaintiffs for declaration of his title to the extent of 8-annas share in the superior interest under which this tenancy was held. That was decided on the 14th June 1916 in the Court of first instance, the decree being in favour of Kangali I...
Nityananda Sarkar and on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.750
1. The only question urged in this appeal is the question whether the landlord of a tenure can sue for rent the usufructuary mortgagee of his tenant, the said mortgagee having taken possession of the mortgaged property. Both the Courts below have held that in fact be can. The view they take is supported by the language of Section 12 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and also by the authority of the cases reported as Kannye Loll Sett v. Nistoriny Dossee 10 C. 443 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 298, Bharub Chandra Karpur v. Lalit Mohun Singh 12 C. 185 at p. 189 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 126 and Vithal Narayan v. Shriram Savant 29 B. 391 : 7 Bom. L.R. 313. Accepting this view as correct, we dismiss this with costs....
Atul Chandra Kundu Vs. Sarat Chandra Laha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.215
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for refund of Rs. 700 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest-money for the purchase of certain land.2. It appears that under a bainapatra, dated November 1914, the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff, 1 bigha, 4 cottas of land together with permanent structures thereon for Rs. 4,400. Out of the purchase money so settled, Rs. 700 was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant as earnest-money and it was agreed that on receipt of the purchase-money within three months, the kobala would be executed. There was an express provision in the agreement that in case the plaintiff failed to pay the balance of the purchase-money within the time fixed he would forfeit the earnest-money and would have no right to claim a refund of the same.3. The defendant pleaded that the transaction fell through owing to the failure of the plaintiff to pay the balance of the purchase-money. It is found that the plaintiff was not in a position to pay the balance of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »