Kolkata Court August 1921 Judgments
Jagadish Chandra Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.67
1. The petitioner---a writer constable at Darjeeling---was convicted under Section 29 of the Police Act (V of 1851).2. He obtained leave for six months and it is said that a year's leave was due to him, After the expiry of the period of his leave, be applied for an extension. He same down to Calcutta to get money from a Bank in which he had deposited his savings. He had to wait here for the Director's meeting which was put off from time to time and he accordingly applied for an extension of his leave. He was asked to submit a medical certificate. He represented that he was not ill out was detained in Calcutta for the business mentioned above. He was then sailed upon to join his appointment, and went back.3. He had to settle his affairs in the Bank at a considerable sacrifice. It is stated that he had Rs. 2,000 due to him and he had to settle it for Rs. 1,100. For a person in his position it wad, no doubt, a great hardship.4. The question is, whether the petitioner had reasonable cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Baley Mahammad Sahi and ors. Vs. Aijanmai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.780
1. This is an appeal by the decree holders from an order of dismissal made on an application for execution of a mortgage-decree. The preliminary decree in the mortgage-suit was made on the 8th May l9l2. This was followed by the final decree on the 15th January 1916. On the 11th August 1919, the decree---holders applied for execution. This application was prima facie barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Schedule to the Indians Limitation Act. Consequently, the decree-holders sought to escape from the bar of limitation by reference to a payment alleged to have been made by the judgment-debtors on the 25th October 1917, The Court of first instance held that the alleged payment, which had not been certified or recorded under Order XXI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not be recognised, and dismissed the application as barred by limitation. This decision of the primary Court has bean affirmed by the District Judge. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Courts be...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Sashikanta Acharyya Vs. Raja Sarat Chandra Rai Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal699,70Ind.Cas.6
1. These two appeals are directed against a decree for the ascertainment of mesne profits in continuation of a suit for recovery of possession of land with, mesne profits. Neither the judgment-debtor nor the decree-holder has been satisfied with the decision of the Subordinate Judge; the former considered the amount awarded as excessive, while the latter deemed, the amount inadequate. Consequently, both the parties have appealed, and all the points in controversy between them have been elaborately re-argued in this Court. Upon one material point, however, the parties have, since the close of the arguments, wisely come to an agreement, as will presently, be explained, and the matters which actually require our decision have thereby been substantially reduced to a narrow compass.2. subject matter of the litigation was an area of 2720 bighas, approximately, which, the plaintiff claimed as included in Mouza, Shyampur, Paharpur, within his Zemindar Mahal No. 218. The defendant claimed that ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Surajmull Munglechand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal403(1),70Ind.Cas.463
Greaves, J.1. This is an application on behalf of kissen Das Banthia, the adjudicating creditor, asking for an order that Madhoram Rahumall do produce a certain deed of assignment executed by the insolvents in favour of Raghunath Das sivalal of all debts due to the insolvents and also another deed referred to in the summons executed by Raghunath Dass Sivlal assigning their interest under the first deed may be declared void, and in the alternative that Raghunath Dass Sivial do pay to their offical Assignee a sum of Rs. 30,000 received by them as consideration for the assignment executed by them above referred to.2. A preliminary objection was taken that this application, which is said to be made by virtue of the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, can only be made by the offical Assignee. I think the objection is well founded and that such and application should be made by the official Assignee in whom the property of the insolvent is vested and not ...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Mahamad Kazem Ali and anr. Vs. Munshi NaimuddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.210
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree for money. The decree was passed by the Third Subordinate Judge's Court, 24-Parganas, in respect of a claim, the cause of action of which arose within Diamond Harbour. The previous application for execution of the decree was made in that Court. Subsequently, the business arising within the local limits of the Munsif of Diamond Harbour was assigned to the Fourth Subordinate Judge Court by the District Judge under Section 13(2) of the Bengal and Assam Civil Courts Act (Act XII of 1887). The present application for execution was made in the Fourth Subordinate Judge's Court, and a question was raised in the Court below whether the latter Court had jurisdiction to execute it. The question was answered in the affirmative by the Court below. The judgment-debtors have appealed to this Court, and it is contended on their behalf that under Section 13(2) of Act XII of 1887 the business is not transferred but is merely assigned to t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaminibala Debi Vs. Karali Prasad Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal242,67Ind.Cas.6
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of refusal of a District Judge to hear an appeal on the ground that no appeal lay, inasmuch as the order of the Court of first instance was made in the course of proceedings in execution of a decree made by a Court of Small Causes.2. It appears that on the death of one Bhabadeb Bhutta his creditor Karali Prasad Mukherjee instituted a suit against his three infant sons and his widow. The claim was based as against the sons on the ground that they were the legal representatives of the deceased debtor and as against the widow on the ground that she had taken possession of the moveables which formed part of the estate left by the deceased The suit, which was instituted in a Court of Small Causes was decreed against the infant sons, but was dismissed as against the widow because she was not proved to be in possession of the moveables of the estate. The judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge states that as the widow was not an heir, she w...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Bihari Roy and ors. Vs. Mahendra Chandraghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal722,67Ind.Cas.10
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money due on adjustment of accounts upon dissolution of a partnership business, called the Joint Salt Bond Business, and carried on by them and the three sets of defendants at Sadarghat, Chittagong. The plaintiffs constitute a firm styled Krishnadas Sanatan Brojendra Kumar Ray. The first party defendants are members of a firm known as Krishna Kumar Ghosal; the second party defendants are members of a firm styled Ramkamal Radhaballabh Saha; the third party defendants are members of a firm named Gangadas Seal. In the salt business, the Rays claim a five-annas nine-pies share, the Ghosals four-annas share, the Sahas four annas six-pies share and the Seals one-anna nina-pies share, The business was managed by the different sets of partners during the four quarters of the year by turns, namely, the Ghosals during the first quarter, the Seals during the second quarter, the Sahas during the third quarter and the Rays during the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudeb Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Kalachand Mallik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal129,66Ind.Cas.536
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the execution of a decree obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant for the removal of a nim tree. The tree stands on the boundary wall of the land of the second defendant, and its roots have penetrated into the adjoining wall of the house of the first defendant. The consequence has been that the wall has been cracked and the house has been injured. In these circumstances, the first defendant instituted a suit against the second defendant for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the tree and for damages. On the 20th May 1917 that suit was decreed, and the first defendant became entitled to remove the tree unless the second defendant removed it within fifteen days. That decree was affirmed on appeal on the 22nd January 1919. Thereupon, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on the allegation that the tree was a sacred tree, that it had been duly consecrated, that it was wors...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishna Sil Vs. Abdul Samad Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal569,66Ind.Cas.640
1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand made in a suit for the establishment of a prescriptive right to bury the dead in the disputed land, for a permanent injunction to restrain interference with such right and for incidental reliefs. The subject-matter of the litigation is a hillock which was included in the Reserve Forest of the Government up till 1907. In that year the defendant obtained a settlement from the Government and has since then been in possession. The plaintiff, who are Moslem residents of the adjoining village of Talberia, allege that the Moslems of the locality have in the past buried the dead in the disputed tract, but were resisted by the defendant on the 26th October 1914. They assert that, from time immemorial and for more than a century, the hillock has been used as a burial ground, openly, continuously, without interruption and as of right, and that they have thereby acquired prescriptive right therein. They accordingly instituted this suit on the 1...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bhupendra NaraIn Singh Bahdur and ors. Vs. Madar Bux Sheikh and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal296,66Ind.Cas.793
1. This is an appeal by the zemindar defendant in a suit commenced on the 12fch April 1915 under Section 14 of Regulation VIII of 1819 for reversal of the sale of a patni taluk held under the Regulation on the 15th May 1914. The validity of the sale was attacked on a variety of grounds. One of these grounds was that the requirements of Section 8 of the Regulation had not been fulfilled; and this was formulated in the ninth issue in the following term:Were the Astom petition, notice, istahar and all the proceedings connected therewith, good and valid according to law and were notice and istahar duly served.2. The District Judge has answered this question in favour of the putnidar an J has, for this reason, set aside the sale as invalid. On the present appeal by the semindar, the conclusions of the District Judge have been assailed as erroneous.3. Sections, Clause 10 I. A. 19 : 9 C 619 : 13 C. L. R.34 : 4 sar, P.C.J.414 : 7 Ind .Jur .212;4 Ind. Dec.(n.s.)1031 (p.c) of the Patni Regulatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »