Kolkata Court May 1921 Judgments
Emperor Vs. AsiruddIn Sarkar, on Behalf of the Firm of Abed Ali Tufani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal118,62Ind.Cas.412
1. This case comes before us on a reference made under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge of Pabna, It is directed against an order made or purporting to be made under the provisions of Section 137, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Serajgunge. By this order he directs the removal of two obstructions to a certain drain or water channel, one such obstruction being a wall north to south for a distance of nine feet from the northern extremily thereof, another a wall running east and west along the bed of the channel. The reference is made on a number of grounds, game of which do not appear to be well founded. But we are of opinion that we must accept the reference and set aside the orders to which we have referred on two grounds, namely, that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to have fixed an arbitrary limit of time, namely, five minutes for the cross examination of the witnesses and, secondly, on th...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Ganguli and anr. Vs. Manmatha Nath Pal Choudhury and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.677
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Nuddea, sitting as a Special Judge within the meaning of Section 109A of the Bengal Tenancy Act and, the learned Judge was hearing certain rent appeals from the Revenue Officer of Krishnanagore. In this appeal we have to consider one only of those appeals, namely, Specialy Rent Appeal No. 380 of 1917 in case No. 157 of 1912 13.2. Before the learned Judge the tenants Gobind Chandra Ganguly and Gopal Chander Ganguly were the appellants, and the landlords or the landlords' representatives were the respondents and in this Court the position is the same, namely, the tenants are the appellants. At the commencement of the argument we directed the record to be amended by adding one of the executors of one of the deceased respondents, whose came had been omitted by inadvertence.3. Mr. Chuckerbutty, the learned Vakil for the respondents, took a preliminary point that in this case there was no right of...
Tag this Judgment!Jaban Saha Deceased Represented by Daughter, Pamiranness and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.85
Panton, J.1. It is impossible to support the order of the learned Munsif in this case. He had a question of fact to decide, namely, whether the petitioner in the case was prevented by any sufficient cause from making the deposit ordered by a certain date. But the learned Munsif has some to a finding on that question after an observation that no evidence was necessary. It is not suggested that there was any affidavit on the record or that the parties had some to any agreement on the subject.2. The orders must, therefore, be set aside and the case remitted to the Court of the Munsif in order that it may be decided according to law.3. Costs, one gold mohur, to abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chandra Roy Vs. Akhay Kumar Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.331
1. The petitioner before us has been convicted of the offense punishable under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of 30 rupees, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The offence of which he has been convicted has reference to a crop of son grass growing on a certain piece of land. It is not disputed that this parcel of land belonged originally to one Mukhada, who is now dead. The complainant Akhay Sardar claims this land on the strength of a settlement taken by him from one Suren Chowdhuly, who again rests his title upon an unregistered kabuliyat said to have been executed by Mukhada before her death. On the other hand the accused claims the land on the strength of a purchase from one Arun Tarafdar,who appears to be a nephew and heir of Mukhada. The Trial Magistrate largely relied upon the possession by Akhay or at least the non possession by Arun of the documents of title. But in doing this it appears to us that he has overlooked the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Thakamani Dasi Vs. Pitambar Bhuiya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.957
1. The question considered by the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court was whether or not the appellant was entitled to deduct the time during which the application for review was pending, in computing the period of limitation presented for the appeal to the lower Appellate Court.2. The learned Judge refers to Section 14 of the Limitation Act and to the conflict of rulings on the point. Apparently the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram : (1917)19BOMLR866 was not brought to his notice. In that case their Lordships observed: 'Now if the Judge who purports to exercise the discretion does so under the view that there is no general rule, when in fact there is one, if he has, to use an expression often used in another class of eases, misdirected himself as to the law to be applied to the case, he cannot exercise a judicial discretion and the superior Court--in this case this Board--must either remit the case or exercise the discretio...
Tag this Judgment!Shib NaraIn Pal Vs. Ram Bilash Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.263
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, who decided in favour of the defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages in the suit which was instituted. In this matter the learned Judge held, first, that the suit was barred by limitation: and, secondly, he held that inasmuch as the plaintiff had broken the terms of the contract, the defendants were not bound to fulfil their part of the contract.2. The matter arose out of a contract of which the learned Vakil, appearing for the appellant, has given us a translation, the accuracy of which is not disputed. It provides as follows: (this was a letter to the defendants) 'I take a settlement on purchase of all burnt steam and new coke in your Chaptaria Colliery at the rate of rupee one annas seven per ton at the mouth or the pit. I shall pay for loading and carting. I shall pay for winnowing the burnt coke and for burning new coke. You (i.e., the defendants) will ...
Tag this Judgment!Benode Behari Bagchi Vs. C.W.T. Hook
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.328
1. In this case the petitioner before us has been convicted under Section 84 of the Calcutta Port Act, III of 1890, and sentenced to pay a fine of 200 rupees.2. It appears that at a point in the Hoogly river known as Hangman's Point, about six miles below Calcutta, there has been found what is spoken of as a bandh or what might perhaps be more appropriately sailed a stage, jetty or platform. It is below the high water mark, extending into the bed of the river for a distance of 8 feet and along the bank of the river for a distance of 150 fact. it is not suggested that for the making of this erection the assent of the Local Government was first obtained and it is not disputed that the bandh in question is within the limits of the Port. The plea of the accused was simply a plea of not guilty. But he has adduced evidence to show that this jetty or platform was in existence for some 12 or 13 years and all that be has done is to raise the height of it sometime in Bysack last year. The Magist...
Tag this Judgment!indu Bhusan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Jatu Mallik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal611,62Ind.Cas.699
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiffs claimed enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground that the rate of rent paid by the tenant was below the prevailing rate, and also on the ground of there being a rise in the prises of staple food crops. The plaintiffs also claimed additional rent on account of excess area under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree for enhancement on the ground of a rise in the prices of staple food crops, disallowed enhancement on the bead of prevailing rate, and also disallowed the claim for additional rent for additional area.3. Both parties appealed to the lower Appellate Court, but the decree of the Court of first instance was maintained on appeal. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.4. It appears that Ishan Chandar Sircar, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, acquired a kaimi mourasi mokarari (Sic)e by auction purchase, and the defendants' predecess...
Tag this Judgment!MesbahuddIn Ahmed Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Borkat Ahamadulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal303,65Ind.Cas.839
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent in respect of a putni.2. The property originally belonged to one Salimannessa, and on her death was inherited by her mother Raisannessa Begum, The latter sold it to the plaintiff who brought the suit for rent on the basis of a kabuliyat dated the 10th Assin 1312.3. The Courts below have concurred in giving a decree to the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed to this Court.4. Three contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant. The first is, that the plaintiff cannot recover rent, because Raisannessa did not get her name registered in the Collectorate in respect of the revenue paying property as required by Section 78 of the Land Registration Act. But there was a written contract (kabuliyat) between Raisannessa and the defendant, and Section 81 of the Land Registration Act lays down that nothing contained in Section 78 shall be held to interfere with the conditions of any written contract.5. It is true that in one ca...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Karar and anr. Vs. Srimati Rohini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.366
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, and the effect of the learned Judge's judgment was that he allowed the appeal, set aside the derision of the First Court and decreed the suit, with costs in both Courts. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on a bond, which had been executed by the two defendants under these circumstances. It appears that in April 1904 the District Delegate of Howrah granted Letters of Administration to the estate of the plaintiff's father to defendant No. 1, and the two defendants executed an administration bond for Rs. 527 in favour of the District Delegate of Howrah. There was an application, as appears from the learned Judge a judgment, by the plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased man, for revocation of the Letters of Administration. That application was rejected. Then it was alleged that the defendant No. 1 had not performed the conditions of the bond, that is to say, he had not file...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »