Kolkata Court April 1923 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.
Madhuram Hazarika Vs. Bhotong Chutiya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal59
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage against the decision of the Additional District Judge of the Assam Valley Districts reversing the decision of the Munsiff.2. The relevant facts are these: The defendant No. 2 mortgaged 33 bighas odd of land to the defendant No. 1 on the 28th February, 1912. On the 23rd March, 1915 the defendant No. 2 executed another mortgage in favour of the plaintiff for 12 bighas of land which included 8 bighas out of the lands mortgaged to defendant No. 1. Subsequent to the second mortgage the defendant No. 1 brought a suit on his mortgage, obtained a decree and in execution of that decree purchased the mortgage property himself in December 1917. The plaintiff was not made a party to that suit. The plaintiff brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale against defendant No. 2. He also did not make defendant No. 1 a party to it. Apparently this suit was brought after the purchase by defendant No. 1 in execution of his ...
Bhowanidas Ramgobind Vs. Harsukhdas Balkishendas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.510
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit to set aside an arbitration award made by the tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce.2. The contract contained an arbitration clause in the following terms: 'Any disputes to be settled by arbitration under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, or at the option of the sellers by the arbitration of two European Sugar Importers of Calcutta, one to be appointed by the sellers and one by the buyers, with power to appoint a European Merchant as Umpire. The decision of the Chamber, Arbitrators or Umpire shall be final and binding on both parties, either of whom may make the same a rule or order of Court. If the buyers shall fail to join in such arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator within three days after being required to do so, the arbitration may at the option of the sellers, proceed ex parte, and the award thereon shall be binding on the buyers, and the sellers may make the same a rule ...
Raman Behari Roy Alias Raman Behari Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.780
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside on the ground that, on the facts alleged by the prosecution, no offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, has been made out. We have heard Mr. Manmathanath Mookerjee in support of the Rule and Mr. Orr on behalf of the Crown and for the reasons given below, we are of opinion that Mr. Mookerjee's contention must prevail.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution, shortly stated, are as follows:It is alleged that the accused sent to one Nobin Chandra Chowdhury an insured cover purporting to contain eight Government Currency Notes of Rs. 100 each. The envelope in question, it appears, was handed over by the accused in person to the Post Master at Niiambazar Post Office on the 16th November 1920. The cover was received at the Beliaghtta Post Office on the x8th November 1920 and was delivered to an agent of the sai...
Dwigendra NaraIn Bagchi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.150
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Nadia to show cause why the proceedings instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922, should not be quashed on the ground that the said proceedings had not been instituted under proper sanction, as the District Magistrate and Collector is not the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of assessment of incomes exceeding Rs. 20,000 and, secondly, why the order of the Trying Magistrate dated the 28th February 1923 revoking the concession of appearing by a Pleader under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be set aside.2. As regards the first ground, Mr. Dasarathi Sanyal, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, states that he does not wish to press the same. The Rule will, therefore stand discharged so far as the first ground is concerned.3. As regards the second ground, the facts are as follows:--The petitioner before us was served with a notice on the 12th Decemb...
Nityananda Koer Vs. Rakhahari Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.940
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan and on the complainant to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him should not be set aside on the ground that a previous order of his acquittal which had been passed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 8th August 1922, not having been set aside by a competent authority, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try and convict the petitioner for the same offences in respect of which the order of acquittal had been passed.2. The facts which have given rise to the application on which this Rule was issued, shortly stated, are as follows: The petitioner was summoned under Sections 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (both summons-cases) to appear on 24th July 1922. On that date a warrant was issued against the accused and the 8th August 1922 was fixed for the next healing of the case. On the 8th August the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the case was pend...
Ponthiram Joab Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal196,76Ind.Cas.965
1. It appears from the order-sheet in this case that on the 15th November 1922, warrants were issued against the absent witnesses for the defence. The number, we are told, was 11. But that is not material. On the 27th November, 1922, only one of these appears to have been present. He was examined. On that day the order-sheet shows that the mukhtear refused to argue, and subsequently nothing was done except that the order complained of was made. From the order made on the 27th November, 1922. I cannot help thinking that the grounds upon which we are asked to interfere exist. It is true that in his explanation the District Magistrate says that the accused and his muktear did not apply for further processes against the witnesses; that is consistent with the order-sheet and consistent with the production of the witnesses still being possible under the existing processes. The remainder of the explanation of the District Magistrate is in such guarded terms that I am not willing to pay much a...
Bhabani Prosad Moitra Alias Doman Chandra Moitra Vs. Hari Charan Bhatt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.938
Buckland, J.1. The Judgment of the Trying Magistrate in this case is most unsatisfactory. He has not considered in his judgment the know ledge or the intention with which the accused caused the bamboo-fencing to be removed. Nor does it appear from his judgment that he came to the conclusion that the accused entered into or upon property in the possession of the complainant, or what his intention was in trespassing, if he did so. The result is that it is extremely difficult from the judgment to ascertain what was in the mind of the Magistrate when he convicted the accused under Sections 447 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. He seems to have discussed the case as if it was of a civil nature. Having done so, he had to deal with it as a criminal trial which in fact it was. It would have been much better if the Magistrate had considered whether or not the case was of a civil nature and. if he came to the conclusion that only a civil wrong had been committed he should have said so and. dealt...
Kedar Nath Dey Vs. Mohamed Siddik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal455,73Ind.Cas.807
Buckland, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of one Kedar Nath Dey against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, dated the 14th March 1923, directing that a certain motor car should remain in Court until further orders. That order was made in criminal proceedings instituted by Mohamed Siddik against a person of the name of Rigby in which the latter is charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of the motor car. Those criminal proceedings themselves as between the parties are not before us and we are only concerned with the order made against Kedar Nath Dey for the return of the ear. But from Siddik's petition of complaint it appears there were arrangements embodied in an agreement between him and Rigby with reference to this motor car. The petition of complaint further states that he learnt on enquiry that Rigby had sold the car to Kedar Nath Dey contrary to the terms of the agreement. The position, therefore, is that there was a dispute about this car resulting in...
Gladstone Wyllie and Co. Vs. Joosub Peer Mahomed and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal117,77Ind.Cas.868
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the assignees of an award for the execution of the award. The award was made in favour of Messrs. Gladstone Wyllie & Co. It was duly filed and was therefore capable of execution as a decree under the provisions of Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act. In execution thereof Messrs. Gladstone Wyllie & Co. attached certain properties of Messrs. Joosub Peer Mahomed & Co.2. The attachment was ultimately withdrawn upon certain terms which are set out in the copy of a letter addressed by Messrs. Gladstone Wyllie & Co. to Messrs. Joosub Peer Mahomed. By these terms the amount of the award was payable in certain sums therein mentioned and, in default of any instalment not being paid, Messrs. Gladstone Wyllie & Co. reserved to themselves the right to proceed with the execution proceedings for the balance of the full amount due under the award. Certain payments were made in pursuance of this arrangement and ultimately, I think sometime in January or Febr...
Kashi Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Priyanath Bakshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal645,83Ind.Cas.424
1. This appeal is directed against an order absolute made on the basis of a consent decree in a mortgage suit.2. On the 5th April, 1916, the Plaintiffs-Respondents instituted a suit against the defendant-appellant to enforce a mortgage security. On the 2nd February, 1917, a decree was made by consent of parties. The decree stated that the decree-holders would be entitled to receive from the judgment-debtor Rs. 4,000 on account of principal and Rs. 400 on account of costs. The aggregate sum of Rs. 4,400 was to be paid by annual instalments which were specified in the schedule. The decree then proceeded as follows : 'The defendants will pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 4,400 on account of the claim and costs as per instalments mentioned below. If default is made in payment of any one instalment, the plaintiffs will then be entitled to realise the whole amount due for all instalments at one and the same time by taking out execution. The properties mortgaged shall remain charged under the mortgag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »