Kolkata Court February 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.
Onkarmal Agarwala Vs. Rai Shehab Nritya Gopal Chaki
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal313(1),67Ind.Cas.885
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution by a decree-holder against a surety, who is the respondent in this appeal. The case of the surety is that the judgment-debtor for whom he stood surety, has paid the decree holder. This fact is contested, and it is also contended before us that we cannot take notice of any such payments, even if in fact they had been made, by reason of the circumstance that they were tot certified. It may well be that the law as regards certification may not have any application as regards payments made by the surety himself,--a point, however, which we need not decide in this case, because it is not necessary. But that is not the case here. It is alleged that payments were made by the judgment-debtor and these payments were uncertified. The position of the surety appears to be this: The surety is bound so long as the judgment-debtor is bound. The judgment-debtor is bound so long as any payments which he may have made (and such alleged payments a...
Sk. Dendoo Vs. Sk. Sachoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal399
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh who dismissed the appeal on the ground that, even if the defendants were successful, the decree would be infructuous by reason of the fact that the heirs of respondent No, 6 had not been brought on the record within the time allowed by law. The suit in respect of which this appeal arises was a suit for khas possession after evicting the defendants. The plaintiffs in the suit were Muhammadans - two being brothers, other plaintiffs being heirs of a deceased brother and the remaining plaintiff being the widow of another brother. They claimed joint possession of the whole of the land and the Munsif decreed the suit in respect of 10 annas 13 1/4 gandas, decreeing that the plaintiffs were to get joint possession with the defendants. Now respondent No. 6 died and, as already stated, his heirs were not brought on the record in time. Now, it is said that this case is distinguishable from the ca...
Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited Vs. the Secretary of State for I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.46
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a reference under Section 51(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). The Bengal Nagpur Railway Company have been called upon to pay tax on Rs. 1,72,60,585 income. This represents earnings on the Railway allocated for payment of the Company's share of surplus profits under the terms of agreement with the Secretary of State, namely, Rs. 14,63,387 and Rs. 1,57,98,766 allocated in payment of:(A) A sum of Rs. 1,07,59,381 being the interest debitable to the undertaking of the Secretary of State's open-line capital. This sum is the interest due to the Secretary of State on 15 million pounds capital found by him.(B) A sum of Rs. 13,07,440 being the payment to the Secretary of State in rupee currency of the amount of the guaranteed interest payable by him on the share of the capital of the Company. This interest is paid on three million pounds share capital found by the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company and made over to the Secretary of State to be held by the latter ...
Sheikh Dendoo Vs. Shaikh Sachoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.2
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh who dismissed the appeal on the ground that even if the defendants were successful the decree would be infructuous by reason of the fact that the heirs of respondent No. 6 had not been brought on the record within the time allowed by law. The suit in respect of which this appeal arises was a suit for khas possession after evicting the defendants. The plaintiffs in the suit were Muhammadans--two being brothers, other plaintiffs being heirs of a deceased brother and the remaining plaintiff being the widow of another brother. They claimed joint possession of the whole of the land and the Munsif decreed the suit in respect of 10 annas 13 1/4 gandas, decreeing that the plaintiffs were to get joint possession with the defendants. Now respondent No. 6 died and, as already stated, his heirs were not brought on the record in time. Now, it is said that this case is distinguishable from the case ...
Abdul Huq and anr. Vs. Mohamaddan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.302
1. In this case the petitioner who is a tenant who rented certain premises at a rent of Rs. 180 a month and whose rent was enhanced from Rs. 180 to Rs. 400, asked that the standard rent might be fixed under the Calcutta Rent Act. Evidence was taken, we are told, from both parties, and at the conclusion of the evidence the Controller went and inspected the premises in question and then wrote his judgment holding that the premises he inspected were not 'premises' within the meaning of the definition in the Calcutta Rant Act. These 'premises' are defined as 'any building or part of a building or hut let separately for residential, charitable, educational or public purposes or for the purposes of a shop or an office including any land appertaining thereto and let therewith.' The Controller held in his judgment that this was not a case in which the standard rent could be fixed. An application was then made to this Court to revise that decision on the ground that the Rent Controller had acte...
Emperor Vs. Babus Rajani Kanta Bose and anr.,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal515,71Ind.Cas.81
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.Reference No. 4 of 1021.1. In this reference it appears that the Pleader D.P. Chakraburtty was retained to make an application on one day only (in the absence of the Pleader who filed the appeal).2. This duty he duly performed and his retainer was discharged.3. He was not further retained in the case, and, consequently, in our opinion there was no professional misconduct on his part.4. In the of D.P. Chakraburtty, therefore, the reference is discharged.5. The case of R.K. Bose is different.6. He was the Pleader for the appellant whose appeal was fixed for hearing on the 2nd June 1921. The Pleader did not appear. Notice under the Degal Practitioners Act was served upon him, but he did not appear to show cause.7. He apparently was present at the public meeting where the hartal was declared and took part in moving ome esolutions.8. The resolutions involved a boycott of the Court by the Pleaders.9. In his case there can be no doubt that he deliberately took part in ...
Emperor Vs. Tarini Mohan Barari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.209
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Referenda by the learned District Judge of Dacca, dated the 15th August 1921, with which he forwarded a report by the learned, Subordinate Judge of the 4th Court, of proceedings taken by him under Section 14, of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879,. against one Tarini Mohan Barari, a Pleader of that Court. The report of the learned2. District Judge in material parts was as follows:The circumstances that have given rise to these proceedings are similar to those that were the occasion of proceedings against ten other Pleaders, regarding whom I have, this day, made a report, and I need not re-state them. It is sufficient to say that Tarini Mohan Barari has complied with the resolution paused by the Dac(sic)a Bar-Association on the 17th Jane last, asking its members not to appear as Pleaders before Babu Pasupati Base.'The defendant Pleader had presented a plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge which was found to be defective. The Pleader-was sailed...
Nitya Gopal Tewary and ors. Vs. Ramsasi Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal296,67Ind.Cas.394
1. The question raised in the appeal is whether the plaintiff should be allowed to redeem in the present suit, which is one for recovery of possession, on a declaration that the mortgage-bond was fraudulent, collusive and without consideration and that the decree obtained, therefore, was also fraudulent and collusive.2. It is found by the Courts below that the mortgage was not fraudulent and the suit was accordingly dismissed.3. It is contended before us, as it was before the lower Appellate Court, that the plaintiff should be allowed to redeem in the present suit and in support of that contention the case of Bal Kishen Lal v. Topeswar Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 815 : 5 C.L.J. (SIC) 17 C.W.N. 219 is relied on. 4. In that case it appears that there were allegations of fraud which had failed, but notwithstanding that the plaintiff was allowed to redeem in that suit. It is to be observed, however, that what was attacked as fraudulent was not the mortgage but the decree which was obtained upon the...
Behari Lal Nandi and ors. Vs. Nrityananda Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal224,67Ind.Cas.1005
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, one bigha of land.2. The disputed one bigha has been found to be an ascertain to another 12 cottas of land. The 12 cottas of laud was found by the Court of first instance to belong to the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court, however, was of opinion that the plaintiffs could not succeed, because they had not set up a case of accretion but had set up a case of re-formation in situ, and he gave also other reasons for deciding the question of title against the plaintiffs.3. It is unnecessary, however, to discuss the question of title as we think that the finding upon the question of limitation disposes of the case. It has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation as they had failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit.4. It is contended before us on the assumption that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners, (as it most be assumed ...
Prosanna Kumar Bedanta Tirtha Bhattacharjya Vs. Madhu Badya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal279,68Ind.Cas.500
1. This ii an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur reversing the decision of the Second Munsif of Madaripore. The plaintiff appellant was one of the proprietors of the estate which was partitioned under Act V (B.C.) of 1897. In the Sahan allotted to the plaintiffs contain laid was held by the defendant in permanent tenure treated by some of the plaintiffs co-sharers in the estate. The plaintiff brought the suit to get khas possession of this land by avoiding the tenure. The Court of first instance give the plaintiff a decree hoi ling that Section 99 of the Partition Act was applicable. That decree has been reversed on appeal by the lower Appellate Court.2. The only question in this appeal is the applicability of Section 99. We hold that on findings arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge this section is inapplicable. It is found that 'by private partition among all the proprietors the defendant's landlords got the land in suit in their share and that they h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »