Kolkata Court December 1922 Judgments
Pannalal Sagore Mull Vs. Mukhram Radhakissen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal637,80Ind.Cas.87
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Rankin.2. The suit was brought to recover damages in respect of the alleged non-delivery of certain goods, bales of grey shirtings, which, it was alleged, had been sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs by a contract, dated the 23rd of November, 1916, or thereabouts. The shipments by the contract were specified as January to June : but it was stated by the learned Advocate-General in opening the appeal that the period provided for shipments had been altered from January to June to April to June.3. The learned Judge delivered two judgments : In the first, he dealt with the question of liability; and, in the second one he dealt with the measures of damages : And, having regard to the course which was taken by the learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the appellants, the appeal has been confined to two points. The first related to the damages which were awarded in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Bandhu Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Kali Prasanna Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal419,74Ind.Cas.279
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order in execution of a decree. The decree was made by the trial Court on the 3rd July, 1906, and was successively confirmed by the lower appellate Court and by this Court on the 10th September, 1907, and 9th March, 1910. In 1912 the decree-holder made the first application for execution of the decree which directed the judgment-debtors to carry out certain works and to restore the disputed property to its original condition. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on the 17th January, 1913. On appeal the District Judge directed that a Commissioner should be appointed with a view to carry out the terms of the decree, and a Commissioner was accordingly appointed. He submitted a report to which exceptions were taken. These were overruled on the 9th July, 1913, by the District Judge who accepted the report of the Commissioner and directed that the execution should take place on its basis. The decree-holder, however, did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Chakrabarty and anr. Vs. Chandi Charan Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal528,76Ind.Cas.510
1. We are or opinion that the order of the District Judge cannot be supported. The security-bond has been placed before us. It provides that, 'in the event of the said appeal case being decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent the said defendant appellant shall pay the sum of Rs. 128-5-0 on account of costs in the said two Courts and on his failing to pay, we (the executants of the bond) shall pay up the said sum.'2. The event contemplated did not happen. In other words, the appeal case was not decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. We are consequently of opinion that the sureties never became liable to pay the sum claimed.3. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout, and the orders of the District Judge and of the First Court are set aside.4. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur in this Court....
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Sen and anr. Vs. Nikunja Behari Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal651,76Ind.Cas.76
1. In this case the complaint of the complainant was dismissed tinder Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. It was dismissed after caving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The learned Sessions Judge on being moved by the complainant has, however, set aside the order of dismissal and directed a further enquiry. The point which is now urged by Mr. Mukherjee is that the order directing a further enquiry should not, in the circumstances of this particular case, have been made without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.2. The facts to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mukherjee in this case are that the tank which is the subject-matter of dispute was recorded in the Record of Rights as appertaining to the non-occupancy-holding of the complainant under the accused and that it was rent-free. The Magistrate who dismissed the complaint came to the conclusion that the accused honestly believed that he was entitled to a kabuliyat from the complainant undertaking to ...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Ghose Vs. Adya Nath Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal690,75Ind.Cas.541
1. In this case a complaint was lodged against the accused Natabar Ghose on the 27th October 1921, under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. From the order-sheet which has been placed before us by Mr. Sanyal who appeared on behalf of the accused, it is clear that there was a protracted hearing of the case before the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Kusht a; the case for the prosecution was not closed till the 9th June 1922, and the case for the defence was not closed till the 14th July 1922. Arguments on behalf of the prosecution were heard on the 18th July and the 25th July 1922 was fixed as the date for delivery of judgment. It appears that on the 28th July 1922, after both sides had closed their respective cases and after arguments had been heard and date had been fixed for delivery of judgment, two witnesses who were named by the prosecution were examined before the Magistrate, the Magistrate having exercised his powers under Section 549, Criminal Procedure Code. The accused rightly complains ...
Tag this Judgment!MohiruddIn Mollah Vs. Gayan Nath Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1928Cal221
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal of an application made by a debtor to be adjudicated an insolvent. The application was presented on 18th September 1919 when the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907 were in force. The presentation of the application is an act of insolvency under Section 4, Clause (F), which provides that a debtor commits an act of insolvency if he petitions to be adjudged an insolvent under the provisions of that statute. The petition complied with the requirements of Section 6, Sub-clause (3), which ordains that a debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition unless his debts amount to Rs. 500. The debtor stated that the total amount of money claimed against him was Rs. 1,269. The application was registered and notice was directed to be issued to the creditors through registered posts. The 14th November 1919 was the date fixed for hearing. On that date, one Sarat Chandra Chaudhury and fifteen others put in a peti...
Tag this Judgment!Habibar Rahaman Vs. Saidannessa Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal327
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the District Judge in favour of two mutwallis of a Mahomedan wakf authorising them to grant a lease of the wakf property. The appellant, another mutwalli, preferred an objection to the application but did not appear to support it, with the result that the order in favour of the respondents was made ex parte on the 6th June, 1922.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents to the competency of the appeal. It has been argued that the order is not a decree and consequently not appealable as such under the Civil Procedure Code. It has further been urged that the order is not one of those expressly made appealable under the Civil Procedure Code nor is it made appealable under any other law. We are of opinion that this contention is well-founded. It is well-settled in this Court Shama Churn Roy v. Abdul Kabeer (1898) 3 C.W.N. 158; In re Halimal Khatun (1910) 37 Cal. 870; Atimannessa Bibi v. Abdul Soban (1915) 4...
Tag this Judgment!Habibar Rahman Vs. Saidannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.907
1. This appeal is directed against an order trade by the District Judge in favour of two mutwallis of a Muhammadan wakf authorizing them to grant a lease of the wakf property. The appellant, another mutwalli, preferred an objection to the application but did not appear to support it, with the result that the order in favour of the respondents was made ex parte on the 6th June 1922.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents to the competency of the appeal. It has been argued that the order is not a decree and consequently not appealable as such under the Civil Procedure' Code. It has further been urged that the order is not one of those expressly made appeasable under the Civil Procedure Code nor is it me de appealable under any other law. We are of opinion that this contention is well-founded. It is well settled in this Court: Shama Churn Roy v. Abdut Kabeer 3 C.W.N. 158, In re Halima Khatun 7 Ind. Cas. 33 : 37 C. 870, Atimannessa Bibi v. Abdul Sabhau 32 Ind. Cas. 21 ...
Tag this Judgment!Promode Chandra Roy Chaudhury Vs. Binayakdas Acharjya Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal611,75Ind.Cas.201
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act at the instance of the landlords for correction of certain entries in the Record of Rights of village Pechandary, the Survey of which has been made and and the Record of Rights in respect thereof has been prepared under the provisions of Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs landlords alleged that the rent of the tenure in suit was enhancible, the tenants in their defence however, urged that having regard to the entry under Section 103B of the Bengal Tenancy Act and to the fact that rent has remained unvaried for a period of over 20 years the claim of the plaintiffs landlords was not entertainable. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Mymensingh before whom this matter came in the first instance was of opinion that although the entry in the Record of Rights was in favour of the defendants, stilly having regard to the Quinquennial Register of 1205 B.S. prepared under the provisions of Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Nath Mukherjee Vs. Lakhi NaraIn Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal68,75Ind.Cas.435
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit brought for the construction of the will of Sreeman Chandra Mukherji who died in the year 1878.2. The plaintiff, as the learned Judge states is one of the heirs of the testator and the defendants Nos. 2 to 12 are also heirs. The first defendant, Lakhi Narain Ganguly, is a great-nephew of the testator. He was not alive at the death of the testator, as he was born in the year 1886, and he is interested in this will as having been appointed by the will of Rama Sundari Debi, the widow of the testator, who died in 1918, the shebait of the property to which the former will referred and dedication and management of which are in question.2. By the first clause of his will the testator gave his interest in a taluq called Dehee Ulasee to his only daughter and her husband.3. The second clause calls for no mention.4. By the third clause the testator made provisions for the performance of his sradha and for the m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »