Kolkata Court March 1921 Judgments
Birendra Nath Mitra Vs. Uma Charan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.388
1. This Rule arises out of an application to set aside a sale of a decree for Khas possession of immoveable property, under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The Courts below have held that Order XXI, Rule 90, does not apply to such an application, in other words, that a decree for possession of a land is not immoveable property within the meaning of the rule.2. Order XXI, Rule 53, Clause (i), lays down the procedure to be observed where the property to be attached is a decree either for the payment of money or for sale in enforcement of a mortgage or charge, while Clause (4) lays down the procedure where the property to be attached in execution of a decree is a decree other than a decree of the nature referred to in Sub-rule (1). Rule 54 describes the manner in which the attachment of immoveable property is to be effected and Sub-section (2) states: 'The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode and a copy o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Lal Ghose Vs. Rakhal Das Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.977
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for constrution of a Will executed by his step-brother Natobar Ghose. The substantial controversy between the parties relates to the construction of Clause (5) of the Will, which is in the following terms: 'That I have some Tezarati Karbar in my own name and in the benami of my son Girish Chandra Ghosh. After my death my said step brother Sriman Rajendralal Ghosh and his sons, &s.;, in succession shall realise, either amicably or by suits, the amounts that may remain due from my debtors and with the said money and with the G.P. Notes that may be left by me, they shall re excavate, in my name, the tank known as Panja Tank belonging to us in village Khorda Cawnpore and remove thereby the water difficulty of the public. Whatever will remain surplus, after defraying the said expenses, shall be obtained by my said brother and his sons, &s.; If he does not re-excavate the said tank in my name, then my three married daughter...
Tag this Judgment!MartIn and Co. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal639,67Ind.Cas.909
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 51(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918, and Rule 31 of the Excess Profits Duty Rules.2. It appears that Messrs. Martin and Co. were required to pay duty upon excess profits calculated at a certain figure which is named in the Reference, The Adviser on Excess Profits Duty to the Government of India made a representation to the Board of Revenue that Certain items in the calculation were wrong and under Rule 20 of the Excess Profits Duty Rules, 1920, the Board called upon Messrs. Martin and Co., to show cause why the Excess Profits Duty Assessment should not be enhanced. On the 21st of January this year Messrs. Martin and Co. put in an answer to this requisition, and that answer is attached to the case. Messrs. Martin and Co., requested that if the contentions of the Board of Revenue were persisted in, reference should be made to the High Court on two questions. The questions were as follows: '(I) Whether they are entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarika Nath Paul and anr. Vs. BipIn Rishi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal200,64Ind.Cas.32
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the decree holder. He obtained a decree for Rs. 419 odd. The last application was disposed of on the 7th Marsh 1917 and the application from which this Rule arises was presented on the 23rd April 1920, that is, more than 3 years later. The decree-holder seeks to get over the matter of limitation by saying that payments were made out of Court in February 1918 and May 1919.2. It is argued on his behalf that on the principle of the decision in the case of Tukaram v. Babaji 21 B. 122 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 84, the statement that these payments were made out of Court should be treated as an application for certification and the lower Court should be directed to give the judgment-debtors an opportunity of stating whether such payments had in fact been made or not. So far as this Court is concerned, it appears to me that the matter is concluded by the decision in the case of Bireswar Mookerjee v. Ambika Charan Battacharjee 42 Ind. Cas. 472...
Tag this Judgment!BasiruddIn Sarkar Vs. Jogendra Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.182
Walmsley, J.1. The defendant prefers this appeal against a decision by which his rent has been enhanced to the extent of about 35 per sent.2. Two points are raised. The first affects his claim which has been rejected that his rent is not liable to alteration. The lower Courts have found that prior to 1300, the rent payable by the defendant was Rs. 16 and in or about 300, it was raised to Rs. 18, Such a finding of fact, of course, destroys the presumption which the defendant would have us draw from a long uniform payment. But the form in which the point is pressed now is this: in the plaint, it is said, the plaintiff stated the original rent to be Rs. 18 and the finding of a variation about 1300 B.S. is inconsistent with that statement. Now, I think the explanation given of this is quite sufficient, namely, that before the year 1300, the estate in which this holding is situated was in the hands of a Receiver and that shortly before 1300 it went back to the hands of the proprietor: so wh...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Ghose Vs. Makhanlal Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.11
1. The petitioners in this Rule obtained two decrees for money in the Calcutta Small Cause Court against the judgment-debtors. They attached before judgment certain goods belonging to the judgment-debtors in the custody of certain navigation companies. Applications for execution of the decrees were made in the Naraingunj Munsif's Court for realising Rs. 1,449 and odd due under the two decrees, and sale proclamation was issued fixing the 7th October 1920 for the sale of the goods the Opposite parties bad also obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtors in the Calcutta Small Cause Court, and had attached the goods before judgment. Their attachment was prior to the attachment tinder one of the decrees obtained by the petitioners, but subsequent to the attachment under their other decree.2. The opposite parties executed their decree in the Dacca Sub Judge's Court and got the sale fixed for the 7th October in the Munsif's Court (in execution of the petitioners' decrees) Stayed. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Nath Sarma Motayed Vs. Sheikh Inamdi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.118
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed interest on the arrears of rent at the rate of 150 per sent, per annum. The Courts below disallowed the high rate of interest on the ground that it was exorbitant and awarded damages at 25 per sent. The land was held under a lease for a term of three years from Magh 1285 to Pous 1288. The lease expired before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act; there was no fresh lease and the tenant was holding over.2. There is divergence of judicial opinion upon the question as to the effect of holding over. In the case of Kishore Lal Dey v. The Adminsitrator-General of Bengal 2 C.W. N. 303. Ghose and Wilkins, JJ., were of opinion that when a tenant holds over, after the expiration of his lease, he does so on the terms of the lease, on the same rent and on the same stipulations as are mentioned in the lease until the parties come to a fresh settlement; that there is no general rule of law to the effect that the lease of...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Banikya Vs. Harulal Kundu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal643,64Ind.Cas.72
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the application for execution of an instalment decree is barred by limitation. The decree was passed on the 21st of December 1919 (sic), and provided for the payment of Rs. 800 odd in sis instalments, namely, Rs. 141 odd for each instalment, from 1322, B.S., the whole amount to be due with interest in, default in payment of any instalment. The application for execution of the decree was made on the 1st April 1919, that is, more than three years after the date of the decrees. But the decree holder relies upon three payments, namely, the instalments for 1322 and 1323 in full and Rs. 100 (only) in respect of the instalment of 1324. The Court below held that the payments were proved, and that the application for execution was not barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor has appealed to ibis Court, and the question to be determined is whether the payments, not having been certified to the Court before the application for execution was made...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemutty Taramoni Chaudhurani and ors. Vs. Charu Chandra Chadnhuri an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.334
1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the question involved in the appeals is what is the standard of measure in the village.2. The lower Appellate Court name to the conclusion upon the evidence that it was a gaj of 221/2 inches. But it referred to certain books, one being The Sherpur Bibarani and the other The Mental Arithmetic, the former of which is said to have been compiled by Babu Haranath Chaudhuri, the son of the plaintiff Taramoni Chaudhurani. The first book was produced on behalf of the defendants to show that the standard of measurement was a gaj of 221/2 inches. The plaintiff, on the other hand, produced the second book 'The Mental Arithmetic to show that the gaj was one of 201/2 inches. The learned District Judge, while dealing with the other evidence, referred to those two books and observed that too much importance ought not to be attach to them.3. On second appeal the matter came before Teunon and Chaudhuri, JJ. They w...
Tag this Judgment!Re Albert Felix Seldana, Insolvent. Ex Parte Rai Sukhlal Karnani Bahad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.715
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves, whereby he refused an application made on behalf of one Rai Sukhlal Karnani Bahadur in the insolvency of one Albert Felix Seldana.2. The application consisted of a prayer 36 Ind. Cas. 990 : 20 C. W. N. 1155 : 44 C. 286, for an order that the order of the 29th of November 1920, should be set aside, (2) alternatively, for an order that the proceedings thereunder should be set aside, (3) alternatively, for directions as to the scope of the enquiry before the Re gistrar.3. The matter arose in this way; Seldana was adjudicated an insolvent on the 2nd of July 1920, and, on the 18th August 1920, a complaint against Seldana was filed by the Munitions Board, charging him with certain offences under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code which may be shortly described as cheating, conspiracy to client and forgery. On the 26th of August 1920, a complaint was made against Sukhlal Karnani, the appel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »