Kolkata Court January 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Rabindra Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.985
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted by my learned brothers, Mr. Justice Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Pearson, calling upon the District Judge of Dacca to show cause why the proceedings under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act against the petitioner should not be quashed or, in the alternative, why the proceedings should not be transferred to some other Court or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court might seem proper. The Court made an order that, in the meantime, pending the hearing of the Rule, further proceedings under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act should be stayed. It appears that the learned District Judge of Dacca caused a notice to be served upon the petitioner under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. That notice referred to certain matters, which, I think, may be classed under three heads: With regard to the first, the allegation was that the petitioner, being a Pleader of the Court, was, on the 15th of June 1921, 'gui...
Samad Ali and anr. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal314,65Ind.Cas.851
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule arises put of proceedings taken under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.2. In January a proceeding was drawn up in the usual terms and the land was attached under Clause (4). After several adjournments, on June 22nd the learned Magistrate refused to give further time to the first party, and recorded the order, 'proceedings stopped: File.' That is very ambiguous. However, we are not called on to interpret the meaning of such an order for on the same day, a petition was put in by the second party and the learned Magistrate wrote on it this order: 'Heard the parties: examined the documents. The first party have failed to prove their possession and case, though repeated opportunity was granted, second party will remain in possession,' Then he gave the petitioners time to move this Court, and on July 11th this Rule was obtained and on July 13th he ordered that the land should remain under attachment pending disposal of this Rule.3. The procedure is irregular. It ...
Sita Nath Bhagat and ors. Vs. Ramkishore Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal280,69Ind.Cas.272
Walmsley, J.1. I think this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on Which it was issued. On the 28th June last before, the learned Magistrate disposed of the case, a Hajira was filed showing that thirteen witnesses were present in Court to give evidence on behalf of the second party. None of them, however, was 'examined. There is nothing on the record to suggest, that' it was at the wish, of the second party that the witnesses were not examined.2. In my opinion, the Rule must be mads absolute and the order passed under Section 143, Clause (1), Criminal Procedure Code, must be set aside and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the witnesses produced by the second party must dispose of the case in accordance with law.Suhrawardy, J.3. I agree....
Askaran Baid Vs. Gobordhan Kobra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal52,70Ind.Cas.158
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit instituted on the 20th September 1918 to enforce a mortgage dated the 26th July 1916, and repayable on the 21st July 1917. The Subordinate Judge has made a decree for foreclosure. The plaintiff is not satisfied with this decree and contends that he is entitled to a decree for sale of the mortgaged properties as also to a personal decree against the mortgagors. We arc of opinion that the contention of the appellant is well-founded.2. In view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act, there can be no doubt that a decree for sale may be made in favour of the mortgage when the mortgage is an English mortgage as in the present case. This has not been contested by the respondent and for an obvious reason. If the hypothecated properties are brought to sale and the sale-proceeds prove more than sufficient to satisfy the dues of the mortgagee, the surplus will remain for the benefit of the mortgagors. On ...
Golam Sobhan Vs. Ali HossaIn Bahaddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal322,65Ind.Cas.696
Greaves, J.1. On the 18th July 1921 this Rule was issued at the instance of the defendant calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the decision of the Additional District Judge of Chittagong should not be set aside and that of the Munsif dated the 15th September. 1919 restored. The suit was brought on a hand-note. The defence was that there was no consideration. The First Court held in favour of the defendant's contention namely, that there was no consideration, and the suit was dismissed. The lower Appellate Court, while stating that the defendant's evidence that no money passed was stronger than the plaintiff's evidence, allowed the appeal on the ground that no evidence was admissible to show that there was no consideration, having regard to the terms of Section 92 of the Evidence Act.2. The learned Additional District Judge, it would appear, failed to take into account the provisions of provision (1) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances. I am asked to interfere ...
Bidhuranjan Mozumdar Vs. Mangan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal452,67Ind.Cas.780
John Woodroffe, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 60 of the Indian Stamp Act. No appearance has been made by the person liable to pay the stamp. The learned Government Pleader has rightly pointed out to us that as the penalty has already been levied, it may be a question whether the learned Judge was right in making this Reference; but seeing that the learned Judge states in his Reference that 'pending the decision on ibis Reference the plaintiff in this suit has preferred to pay the stamp duty and penalty,' I think that the inference is that before the penalty was levied, the learned Judge had determined to make this Reference; and all that happened was that the Reference was actually framed later on. Upon the facts submitted to us, I think that the attestation referred to in Section 2 Sub-section (5) Clause (b) of the Indian Stamp Act means attestation on the face of the instrument. In this connection I may refer to Reference under Stamp Act I of 1579, Section 49 17 A. 211; A.W....
The Imperial Tobacco Company of India Limited Vs. the Secretary of Sta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal454,67Ind.Cas.902
John Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the applicant Company has been assessed to super tax as agent for six gentlemen mentioned in the reference. All these gentlemen are non-residents of British India. They are shareholders in the Company and the assessment has been made in regard to the dividends payable to them by the Company. The Company is an Indian Limited Company and the income, of which assessment was made, arose and accrued in British India. The question is whether the Company is an agent for there gentlemen as defined in the Indian Income Tax Act, VII of 1918. It is their contention that they are not such agents, and that they are not in receipt of any income of the persons whose agents they are alleged to be.2. The Board has held that they were such agents and the matter has been referred to us upon the application of the Company. One substantial question is whether Sections 31 and 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act are to be read together or disjointly, in which latter case it woul...
Jogendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Rajendra Nath Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.200a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of a house described as the salarbari which originally belonged to one Haridhan and his co-sharer.2. The plaintiff purchased the 4 annas share, which belonged to Haridhan, on the 26th April 1916, the defendant having purchased the remaining shares so far bask as 19th November 1901 from the other co-sharers. After his purchase, the defendant blocked up the sadar door of the sadarbari.3. The plaintiff brought the suit for partition in 19(sic)7, and the defendant pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation by reason of adverse possession on his part for 12 years.4. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the possession of the defendant was not adverse to Haridhan and that the claim of the plaintiff, therefore, was not barred by limitation.5. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the possession was adverse and that his claim was barred by limitation.6. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.7. It is contended that...
Kader Buksh Hazir Buksh Vs. Shaik Seraj-ud-din
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.130
Rankin, J.1. This suit is brought under Order XXXVII of the Code and no leave to defend has been obtained. It is now before me or final disposal as an undefended cause.2. The claim is upon five promissory-notes expressed in the common English form. Each note is for five thousand rupees and are silent as to interest, The suit is between the original parties to the notes, the defendant being the maker and the plaintiffs the payees.3. Paragraph 5 of the plaint is as follows:It was agreed at the time of the treaty for the said hundies that the amounts thereof would carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum from the respective due dates thereof until realization.4. The writ of summons gives notice that in default of defence the plaintiffs will be entitled to decree 'for any sum not exceeding the sum of Rs. 27,325' and costs. It makes no express mention of interest, but the figure Rs. 27,325 is apparently calculated at 18 per cent.5. The question is whether decree should be made a...
Nayan Manjuri Dasi Vs. Fazley Huq Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal502,71Ind.Cas.527
Walmsley, J.1. The opposite party have been found to be the occupants of four stalls in a hat which is held at Howrah on one day a week. The petitioner is the proprietor of the hat. The hat is held on a place surrounded by walls, and the gates on those walls are shut at night, and the evidence is, that the stall-holders, on removing their goods, leave the hat entirely empty, when it remains in the charge of the durwans of the second party, the petitioner before us. The opposite party claim the right to continue to be in occupation of the four particular stalls in the ha. The proprietor, on the other hand, claims the right to let out' those stalls to other stall-holders if she gets better terms, or if the opposite party refuse to pay what she asks; These are the circumstances under which the matter reached the point at which the Magistrate thought proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code were necessary. We are not concerned with the question whether there is any appr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »