Kolkata Court June 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhupendra Narayan Singh Vs. Nurput Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal451,84Ind.Cas.581
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an. application for a certificate that these; are fit cases for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; they are numbered Nos. 9 to 26 of 1922. The appellant is Raja Bhupendra Narain Singh Bahadur and the respondent is Nurput Single They were second appeals, that is to say, appeals to this Court from the decision of the lower Appellate Court and were disposed of by my learned brothers Greaves and Ghose, JJ., in one judgment.2. It is admitted by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the subject-matter of the appeals, when taken together, will not be of sufficient value to justify us in granting a certificate having regard to the terms of the first clause of Section 110 of the C.P.C.3. The grounds,, upon which the application was argund, are the 8th and 9th of the petition which are as follows:8. For that your petitioner begs to submit further that the decision of this Hon'ble Court will affect indirectly a large number of resumed chou...
Shamal Das Kshettry and ors. Vs. Phanindra Nath Roy Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal532,72Ind.Cas.467
1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs in an insolvency case.2. One Sarada Prosad Ghosh was a dealer in jute. He entered into an agreement with a certain person called Khettry under which the latter was to make advances to Sarada on the security of jute kept in his godown. By the agreement, the key of the godown was to be kept by Khettry but was to do the buying and selling independently and Khettry was to have no control over that. Further, Sarada was to have the delivery of the jute. In this manner Khettry used to finance Saiada until An that 1920 when he stopped further advances. On the 19th January 1921 Sarada presented a petition of imolvency. The adjudication order was made on the 21st January, 1921 and a Receiver was appointed.3. Khettry claimed to be a secured creditor in respect of the jute, which lay, in, the godown. His dues were about Rs. 38,500. The dues of other, creditors amount in all to about Rs. 53,000 and, out of this amount som...
Srimanta Seal Vs. Bindubasini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal138,76Ind.Cas.517
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for confirmation of possession upon declaration of title and for an injunction to restrain the execution of a decree. The subject-matter of the litigation is an occupancy holding which has been assumed to be non-transferable for the purposes of this suit. The holding belonged to a family of Kundus, and their right, title and interest was purchased on the 15th December, 1909 by one Kumud Sundari Barmani at a sale in execution of a money-decree. The sale was confirmed on the 12th January, 1910, and the purchaser obtained delivery of possession on the 30th January following. On the 16th February she assigned the holding to the present plaintiff. It appears that on the 7th July, 1909, the Kundus had executed in favour of the Shahas (the first two defendants in this litigation) a mortgage of this holding. The mortgagees instituted a suit to enforce their security and joined as defendants not only the mortgagors but also the presen...
Surbeshwar Nath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal501
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was obtained against an order passed under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, directing certain persons to be prosecuted under Sections 186, 353, 341 and 147, Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, it appears to me that the defect in the warrant issued by the Munsiff is fatal. The Munsiff concedes that Jonepore - the village mentioned in the warrant - is not within his jurisdiction. I think it follows from that that the accused could not be guilty of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. So far as the other offences are concerned, they are not offences mentioned in Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, and, therefore, Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, appears to have no application to them. They are offences in regard to which the officers of the Court and the servants of the decree-holder may institute proceedings direct without the intervention of the Civil Court. The Rule is, th...
Lal Mohan Hazra Vs. E.i. Railway Co. Through Agent, P.C. Sheridan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal330,70Ind.Cas.857
Ghose, J.1. These two Rules were obtained on behalf of the plaintiff to show cause why, the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge at Serampore holding, that the plaintiff's suit was barred; by limitation should not be set aside. The plaintiff can signed certain goods to the defendant Company on the 21st February 1920. These were delivered to the plaintiff who was himself the consignee on the 7th March 1920. Then certain other goods were made over to the defendant Company on the 15th March 1920, which were delivered to the plaintiff who was himself the consignee also in this case on the 8th April 1920. In each case the defendant Company did not deliver the entire quantity of goods which were made over to them for carrying and the plaintiff brought these two suits for damages for the non-delivery of the goods, both suits being instituted on the 22nd July 1921, Both the suits were thus brought after the lapse of one year from the time when the goods ought to have been delivered. The Sma...
Mohesh Chandra Missra Vs. Srimati Nistarini Dassya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal382,77Ind.Cas.576
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaratory relief, instituted under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The case for the plaintiff is that he holds a tenancy at a rent of Rs. 13 a year in respect of the disputed land under the Biswases and the Deys who hold under the first defendant, and that the first defendant ignored the interest of the Biswases and the Deys as also his own interest in the property and fraudulently instituted a rent suit against the third defendant a s if the third defendant was his tenant in respect of the disputed land at a rent of Rs. 13 a year. This suit was decreed ex parte on the 15th June 1916 and at the sale which followed the second defendant became the purchaser of the tenancy on the 14th November 1916. On the 20th February 1916 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for declaration that the disputed tenancy was held by him Under the Biswases and the Deys and not by the third defendant under the first defendant, He further prayed...
Parmananda Agarwala Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal538,71Ind.Cas.49
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was obtained, by the petitioner calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the proceedings instituted against him under Section 17, Clause (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) should not be quashed or, in the alternative, why the case should not be transferred to some other District for trial. The case originated on a Police Report, dated the 10th April, 1922, which is in these words: 'I beg to report that Srijut Parmanand Agarwala has been assisting the volunteers by giving them shelter in a house belonging to him in the Tezpur town. I, therefore, request the action under the Criminal Law Amendment Act may be taken against him.' Upon this, the Deputy Commissioner ordered: 'Issue warrant with bail under Section 17(2) of the Act.' That section is in these words: 'Whoever manages, or assists in the management of, an unlawful association, or promotes or assists in promoting a meeting of any such association, or of any members thereof as ...
Bejoy Chandra Sinha Vs. Howrah Amta Light Railway Co. Ltd. by their Ma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal524,72Ind.Cas.98
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease and in the alternative for damages. The subject-matter of the litigation is a house on the Grand Trunk Road in Howrah. In 1912, the first defendant (The Howrah Anita Railway Co.) proposed to the plaintiff to hire this house as a residence for their staff, The plaintiff agreed and the final agreement was that the defendant should hold the house for a period of three years from the 1st November 1912 to the 31st October 1915 at a monthly rent of Rs. 190. No formal lease was executed. But after letters had been exchanged, the defendant entered into occupation of the house and continued in occupation till the end of the term of the lekse. In July 1914, long before the expiry of the term, the defendant informed the plaintiff by a letter that the electric light wiring of the house was in a bad condition and required repairing. The plaintiff took no notice of this request. The result was that the ...
Abinash Chandra Bhattacherjee and anr. Vs. Amar Chandra De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.328
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in an action for ejectment. The plaintiffs and the defendant were co-sharers in a taluq which comprised the disputed lands as an occupancy holding of the Dhars. On the 5th May 1899 the first plaintiff purchased the occupancy holding in execution of a mortgage-decree. The legal effect of this purchase was that the holding ceased to exist as an occupancy holding in the hands of plaintiff as co-sharer landlord and the plaintiff held the land as non-occupancy raiyat. On the 17th April 1900 he sold a portion of the land of the holding to one Raj Chandra Dhar. On the 5th November 1908, the plaintiff in execution of a money-decree re-purchased the transferred land. We are of opinion that the effect of the sale to Dhars was not to break up the tenancy but to constitute the plaintiff and the transferee joint tenants of a non-occupancy holding. The effect of the re-purchase by the plaintiff was to make him, as before, the sole tenant of the non-occupancy ho...
Syama Charan Das Vs. Satya Prosad Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal252,70Ind.Cas.427
1. These appeals are directed against the decree in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property upon establishment of title. The lands are fomprised in two schedules attached to the plaint and originally belonged to a family of Choudhuries, whose pedigree is set out below: GURITDAS CHOUDHURI | ------------------------------------------------ | | | Rasik Chandra Ramratna Chaitanyacharan, | | defendant No, 7. | | Satya Prosad, | plaintiff. | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Rajani Jamini Kamini Nalini Ranjan, Ranjan, Ranjan, Ranjan, defendant defendant defendant defendant No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6.2. On the 9th February 1900 Rasik Chandora, the father of the plaintiff, instituted a suit against his two brothers, Ramratana and Chaitanyacharan, for declaration of title to various properties which, he asserted, belonged to the joint family, for partition, for accounts and for incidental reliefs. The claim was contested; but on the 20th July 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »