Kolkata Court August 1921 Judgments
Kumar Sarat Kumar, Ray Vs. Ram Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal42,68Ind.Cas.9
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of the Trial Court in respect of two applications made by the petitioner, who is the defendant in a pet ding suit. His first application was to Lave himself examined on commission in support of his own ease. His second application was for the issue of a commission to examine Babu Brojo Lal Chakravarty, a Vakil of this Court, to prove three documents which have been produced at a late stage of the proceedings.2. As regards the first application, it cannot be disputed that the defendant was not entitled to the order as a matter of right under Rules 19 and 21 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Those rules apply to persons who are ordered to attend in person to give evidence, including persons who may be parties to a suit, but are required to give evidence as witnesses. The rules have no application to a case where a party to a suit desires to give evidence of his own motion in his own favour. A case of that description is gove...
Tag this Judgment!Nathmull Vs. Goneshmull Jivanmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal106,66Ind.Cas.886
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal made on a petition to set aside an adjudication order under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. It appears that an application was made by a creditor of the alleged insolvent for an adjudication order. Notice of that application was served at 150 Cotton Street where it was, asserted the appellant carried on business. The case for the appellant is that his residence was at 4 Banstollah and that there was, in law, no service of notice, with the consequence that the adjudication order cannot stand, In this connection, our attention has been drawn to Rule 75 of the rules under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, That rule contemplates a personal service on the alleged insolvent, and substituted service is permissible only if personal service cannot be effected. If personal service cannot be effected, the Court may extend the time for hearing the petition, or if the Court is satisfied by affidavit or other evidence that the debtor i...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Prasad Alias Annoda Chandra Alias Bhola Ghosh Vs. Upendra Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal600,65Ind.Cas.18
1. This is an appeal by the fourth defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property on establishment of title. The appellant was an infant at the date of the institution of the suit. On the 5th May 1916 an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff that Hari Das Ghose, who had been appointed guardian of his person and property under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, might be appointed his guardian for the suit. Thereupon notices were issued upon the minor and the proposed guardian. The notices were in the form prescribed in Appendix H to the Code of Civil Procedure and stated that if within the period prescribed an application was not made to the Court for the appointment of the proposed guardian or some friend of his to act as guardian of the minor for the suit, the Court would proceed to appoint some other person to act as guardian ad litem of the minor. On the 6th June 1916 it was reported to the Court that the notices had been duly served both upon the mi...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Chaudhury Vs. Hemendra Kumar Roy Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal629,64Ind.Cas.547
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Vakil for the respondent that no appeal lies against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.2. The question arises in connection with an order of the learned Subordinate Judge,. which is dated the 8th of February 1921. The order was made in execution proceedings.3. In order to explain the order of the 8th February 1921 it is necessary to refer to two previous orders: It appears that on the 3rd of January 1921 the judgment-debtor filed a petition praying for time to file an objection, and time was allowed; and, on the 3rd of February 1921, the judgment-debtor filed an application praying for stay of the issue of the sale proclamation, and his prayer was allowed, and an order was made that the issue of the sale proclamation should be stayed pending disposal of the objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The ground of the objection was that the judgment-debtor was alleging that the...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Chandra Chakravartti Vs. Jnanendra Nath Alias Kules Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal564,64Ind.Cas.819
1. We are invited in this Rule to cancel an appointment of a Common Manager under the Bengal Tenancy Act, on the ground that the order was made without jurisdiction.2. It appears that on the 31st May 1918 an application for the appointment of a Common Manager was made under Section 93 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On the 27th August 1918, Mr. Jnan Ranjan Sen, a Pleader of the lower Court, was appointed Common Manager. But difficulties arose in the management of the estate and on the 14th April 1920 the Common Manager tendered his resignation, which was accepted on the 5th July 1920. The District Judge thereupon proceeded to appoint the opposite party, one of the co-sharers, as successor to the Common Manager previously appointed, We are now invited to discharge this order on the ground that the District Judge was not competent to appoint a successor to the Common Manager, in the absence of statutory provision which authorised him to make an order of this description. In support of this vi...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Prosanna Bhattacharjee Vs. Madhusudan Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal574,64Ind.Cas.824
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an action in ejectment. The defendant executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff on the 11th May 1908 for a term of nine years to expire on the 13th April 1917. As the defendant did not give up . the land on the termination of the tenancy, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 15th June 1917 after service of notice to quit. The defendant pleaded that the kabuliyat contained what was in essence a renewal clause for nine years, that be had offered to accept a new tenancy, but the plaintiff had wrongfully refused and that consequently he was entitled to remain in occupation for a further term of nine years as if a new tenancy had been created in his favour. He also urged that the notice served was inadequate. It is plain that no question of notice arises, as the suit has bean brought on the termination of the tenancy ; if in law the tenancy has terminal ed, the plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendant, without service of notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Indramani Dasi Vs. Surendra Nath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal35,64Ind.Cas.852
1. This is an appeal by the decree holder against an order of dismissal made on an application for execution of a decree for maintenance, The decree was made by consent of parties on the 27th May 1914. The petition of compromise, which was incorporated in the decree, stated that the plaintiff would be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4 par month and that if the amount was not paid from month to month, the plaintiff would be entitled to realise the same from the defendant by execution of the decree, The petition further stated that a sum of Rs. 287 was payable on account of arrears of maintenance, and that this sum would be leviable in execution in two instalments of Rs. 200 and Rs. 87 respectively. The petition finally recital that all the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint would remain charged for the payment of the allowance settled as maintenance. The decree directs that the suit be decreed in accordance With the compromise, that the sum of Rs. 287 be paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Charan Bhuiya and ors. Vs. Debi Prosad Bhakut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal28,64Ind.Cas.864
1. This is an appeal by the judgment debtors against an order of dismissal made on an application for restitution in the course of proceedings in execution of a mortgage-decree.2. On the 21st February 1916 the respondent obtained a mortgage-decree against the appellants. On the 17th July 1917 the mortgaged property was sold in execution and was purchased by the decree-holder. No specific bid appears to have been offered by the decree-holder, but it was stated that he purchased the property for whatever was due to him on the decree at the time of the sale. On the 14th August 1917 the judgment-debtors applied to have the sale set aside under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, but this application was not heard for a considerable time.3. On the 9th February 1918 the decree holder-auction-purchaser and the judgment-debtors came to a settlement to the effect that if the judgment-debtors paid to the decree-holder Rs. 1,313 on or before the 2nd April 1918, the sale would stand cance...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Haimabati Devi Vs. Pran Krishna Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal393,75Ind.Cas.262
1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 10 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act (IX of 1918) and also for a review of a decree said to have been passed by consent.2. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant brought a suit against a certain lady for partition and that on her death six persons were substituted in her place, one of them being Fran Krishna Banerji. Pran Krishna left India to serve in Mesopotamia in August 1918 and returned to Ind a towards the end of October 1919. The suit was disposed of on the 28th of July 1919 upon a petition of compromise filed on behalf of all the defendants. Pran Krishna before his departure from India executed an am mukhtarnama in favour of his four brothers, three of whom signed this petition of compromise, the name of the fourth brother having been signed by the attorney of the latter. In November 1919 the present application was made by Pran Krishna on the ground, amongst others, that the compromise had been affected without h...
Tag this Judgment!Bata Kristo Pramanik Vs. A.K. Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal413,65Ind.Cas.177
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal refusing to execute an order for costs passed by him on the ground that he had no power to execute such an order.2. The petitioner applied to the President of the Tribunal under Section 18 of the Rent Act for revision of an order of the Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of certain premises which the opposite party occupied as tenant. The President fixed the standard rent and awarded costs, amounting to Rs. 89.8, to the petitioner against the opposite party. The petitioner thereupon applied to the President of the Tribunal for execution of the order awarding costs. The learned President held that he had no power to execute the order for costs awarded by him.3. It appears that two contentions were raised before him by the opposite party, namely, first, that the President had no jurisdiction to pass the order about the payment of costs and, secondly, that he had no jurisdiction to execut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »