Kolkata Court February 1921 Judgments
Aswini Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Emperor, on the Complaint of Santosh Kumar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.1005
Teunon, J.1. This case arises out of certain transactions in shares.2. The complainant is a clerk in the Presidency Commissioner's office, while accused is a share broker, though not a member of the Stock and Share Association.3. On the 25th of May last, there were, it is not disputed, two contracts between the parties, one for the sale by complainant of 100 Ghusick and Muslea at Rs. 25-8, and one for the purchase by complainant of 200 Bridge and Bolts. The case for the complainant is that the contract regarding Bridge and Bolts was that the price was Its. 14 4, while the case for the appellant now is that to Rs. 14 4 should be added the paid up capital per share, namely, Rs. 7-8 or Rs. 21-12 in all.4. In fact, later on in the day the accused bought 200 Bridge and Bolts from one Sham Kishore Khanan at Rs. 12-10 'premium' that is, therefore, at Rs. 20-2.5. The farther case for the complainant was that on the 25th neither he nor the accused knew that Bridge and Bolts were only partly pai...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Chatterjee Vs. Babu Santosh Kumar Bose, Chairman, Burdwan Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.105
Richardson, J.1. The petitioner was an inspecting Pundit of Pathshalas or primary schools under the Burdwan Municipality. He brought the suit to recover his pay for twenty-one months at Rs. 15 a month for the period from September 1916 to May 1918, the pay for the whole period amounting to Rs. 315. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 84-5 0 which, he alleged, was in deposit on his account in the Provident Fund. The defence set up by the defendant was that the petitioner's pay had been stopped because he had not worked for the period for which the pay was claimed. I am informed that no separate defence was made in respect of the sum in the Provident Fund, but the written statement has not been placed before me. The suit was tried by a Subordinate Judge exercising Small Cause Court powers. The learned Subordinate Judge, dealing somewhat briefly with the merits on which he found that the plaintiff had done no work for the period to which the claim related, dismissed the suit. This Rule was issue...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Krishna Bhamini Dasi Vs. Srimati Braja Mohini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal617,66Ind.Cas.38
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff appellant is the widow of one Hari Charan Bose, a Mukhtar, who, starting life without means, amassed at length a considerable fortune which is the subject matter of this suit. He died on the 11th April 19 0 leaving another widow, the first defendant, no natural children but grand-children by the plaintiff. The first defendant, was childless. The point at issue is, whether the second defendant is the adopted son of Hari Charan Bose. If not, then the plaintiff elairas possesion of half tho property of her late husband and, alternatively, in., the event of its being held that the second defendant is the adopted son of the plaintiff's husband, then the plaintiff claims maintenance from the estate. There is no dispute that the, deceased had no natural son and that the second defendant, an infact of about 1 1/2 years, was brought, into the home in the beginning of Assar 12 9, that is the end of June 892, some 18 years before H. C. Bose's death and lived there al...
Tag this Judgment!The Russa Engineering Works, Ltd. Vs. Bhadreswar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.327
Richardson, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a Company known as the Russa Engineering Works, Limited. The suit to which the Rule relates was brought by the petitioner as plaintiff against the defendant, a moulding Mistry. The plaint set up an agreement between the Company and the defendant, whereby the Company was to supply raw materials and the defendant was to execute moulding and casting work to be paid for at certain stipulated rates, subject to deduction for bad workmanship and subject also to the return at the end of each month of all such materials or metals as the defendant did not use for the work he had to perform. The learned Small Cause Court Judge returned the plaint on the ground that it involved intricate and minute points of account of the materials supplied to the defendant and the instruments prepared by him. I gather that in his opinion the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. This Rule was issued on the defendant to show cause why the order returni...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Mohajan and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representative ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.563
Richardson, J.1. The Rule relates to a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants, who are the personal representatives of one Surja Dutt Sarma-the Doloi or manager of a temple--the balance of a sum of Rs. 200, which the plaintiff lent to Surja Dutt on a hand-note or promissory note executed by the latter and dated the 27th Sraban 1323 B.S. In the Trial Court, the suit was decreed by the learned Munsif. On appeal, however, that decree was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge. On the construction of the hand-note, the learned Subordinate Judge held that it was executed by the deceased Surja Dutt Sarma in his capacity as the Doloi of the temple. Now, I am disposed to be of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge's view of the meaning and effect of the hand-note was erroneous. But the question raised is a question of law and not a question within the scope of the revisional powers given to this Court by Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, It has been argued by...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Ray Vs. Niranjan Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal331,64Ind.Cas.988
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to enforce a mortgage-security executed on the 4th June 1892 by three persons, whose representatives are the defendants in the action. The sum advanced was Rs. 5,700 and it carried interest at the rate of Rs. 14 per mensem. The loan was re payable in two years. The present suit was instituted on the 4th June 1919, and consequently the question of limitation arose for consideration. The plaintiff relied upon Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act and based his contention on an endorsement in the following terms, made on the back of the mortgage-bond on the 27th May 1905 by two of the mortgagors and the representatives of the third mortgagor: 'Paid on account of the principal as per separate accounts, Rupees one thousand seven hundred fifty-one only.' The Subordinate Judge has held that this did not constitute a valid acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 and that the suit is accordingly barred by limitation....
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Das Ghose Vs. Shorashibala Dast and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal48,66Ind.Cas.590
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of Mr. Justus Greaves whereby the learned Judge dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff is an infant and sued by his mother and next friend. The suit was brought (i) for a declaration. That the lied entitled to an undivided half share of and in the house and premises Nos. 156, 156-1 and 156-2, Baitakhana Road (formerly No. 156, Old Baitakhana Bazar Road) in the town of Calcutta, subject to the life-interest thereon of the defendant Srimati Shorashibala Dasi; (ii) for a declaration that the indenture of conveyance, dated 25th day of March 1918, executed by the defendants, Srimati Shorashibala Dasi, Nogendra Nath Das Ghose and Srimati Golapmoni Dasi in favour of the defendant Niranjan Krishna Das, is void and inoperative in against the plaintiff; (iii) for a declaration that the defendant Niranjan Krishna Das is not absolutely entitled to the whole of the said premises Nos. 156, 153-1, 156-2, Baitakhana Road (formerly ...
Tag this Judgment!Bajranga Lal Kadia and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal719,62Ind.Cas.871
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. No. 906--This was a Rule obtained by Bajrang Lal Kadia calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the proceedings referred to in the petition should not be quashed or such other or further order passed as to this Court may teem fit. There were two other Rules Nos. 926 and 954 of 1920, the same point arising in each Rule. The learned Vakil, Mr. Sanyal, has appeared in Rules Nos. 906 and 926, and the learned Vakil Mr. Manmatha Nath Mukerjee has appeared in support of Rule No. 954.2. The history of the case is as follows: A petition was presented to the Chief Presidency Magistrate by one Sunda Ram, and it was dated the 1st of May 1920, containing certain allegations to which I will refer presently in detail. Upon that petition the complainant was examined, and the learned Magistrate made an order on the 2nd of May, as follows:--Complainant examined. Assistant Commissioner S.D. will please take cognizance. Search warrant for books and papers, ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Kiranmoyi Dasi and anr. Vs. Rama Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.556
Richardson, J.1. The petitioners in this case are the defendants in a suit brought by the opposite party as plaintiffs. The claim made by the plaintiffs was, in the alternative, for the ejectment of the defendants from, or for a declaration of the plaintiffs right to an easement in, a certain strip of land lying between other lands admittedly belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively.2. The suit was instituted on the 8th of July 1919 and a glance at the order sheet shows that the plaintiffs were extremely dilatory in the conduct of the litigation which they had initiated. Not only that, but certain orders show that the plaintiffs made applications which there are reasons to suppose were not bona fide applications ; for instance, one of the plaintiffs applied for permission to have his evidence taken on commission. The defendants preferred an objection to such permission being given and, when the matter came before the learned Munsif for decision, the learned Munsif ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›