Kolkata Court May 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.
H.K. Bhedwar Vs. Rao Saheb C.S.R. Rao
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.76
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued, calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show case why the order dismissing the petitioner's complaint should not be set aside and why further enquiry into the said complaint should not be made and process issued against the opposite party under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, or such other further order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The facts giving rise to the application on which the Rule was issued, are as follows: The petitioner is a licensed Bookmaker of the Calcutta Real Turf Club and has a permanent book for the season 1922-1923 within the first enclosure of the Calcutta Race Course. On the assurance of the opposite party, who is a Deputy Director of Commercial Intelligence, employed under the Government of India, that he would pay up his losses, if any, punctually on the settling flay, the petitioner allowed the opposite party to take bets on credit on the 9th of December 1922. The debts d...
Emperor Vs. Babu Bhubandeswar Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.181
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a report by the learned District Judge of Dacca with regard to a Pleader of that Court.2. The learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that the Pleader had been guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty and, accordingly, he made a recommendation that the Pleader should be suspended from practice. He made a further cider that pending the orders of the High Court on his report the Pleader should be suspended from practice and he should deliver up his certificate.3. The material facts which it is necessary to mention are shortly as follows: One Niljan Bibi in August 1918 was appointed by the Court guardian of her minor sons and daughters and, in respect of the minors' property she was directed to submit accounts. After much delay she submitted accounts and upon examination it appealed that she had not accounted for a sum of Rs. 269 which it was alleged had been withdrawn from the Court on behalf of Niljan Bibi i...
Dibakanta Chatterjee Vs. Gour Gopal Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal727,75Ind.Cas.715
Buckland, J.1. The joint involved in this Rule has come before the Court recently on several occasions, and it arises upon the interpretation to be giver to Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant ana five witnesses for the prosecution were examined-in-chief on the 7th July 1922, On the 20th July 1922 five other witnesses for the prosecution were examinee -in-chief. The accused was then examined under Section 342. On the 7th August a charge was framed. No further witnesses for the prosecution were examined-in-chief, but on that and on subsequent dates the witnesses for the prosecution were cross-examined. On the 18th September six witnesses for the defence were examined. The question is, whether or not the obligatory examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have taken place after the witnesses for the prosecution bad been cross-examined.2. It has been submitted to us that, in smuch as there was no examination of the accused under ...
Radhika Nath Biswas Vs. Rati Kanta Bakshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal158,76Ind.Cas.1009
1. We are invited in this appeal to consider the property of an order of dismissal made by the District Judge on an application by a surety to an administration bond to be released from future liability thereunder. It appears that Letters of Administration, with a copy of the Will annexed were granted to one Rati Kanta Bakshi in respect of the estate of one Harish Chandra Sarkar. Radhika Nath Biswas became surety and undertook to pay any amount not exceeding Ha. 11,524 for which the administrator might be found liable under his bond in the event of a breach of covenant thereof by him. The estate is still under administration by Rati Kanta Bakshi, and the widow of the testator has instituted an administration suit on the allegation that the estate had not been properly administered by him. During the pendency of that suit, the appellant made the present application to the District Judge to be relieved of future liability under his bond, on the allegation that as the administrator had no...
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi Vs. the Midnapur Zemindari Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal25,77Ind.Cas.261
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, is a large tract of alluvial land formed by the recession of the fiver Padma and recorded as an estate on the revenue roll of the Collector of Rajshahi. The land became fit for cultivation more than a quarter of a century ago and was occupied by Robert Watson & Co. There is no evidence to show that the Watsons entered into an engagement with the Collector before they took possession; but, as is not unusual, they occupied the land and were accepted as tenants; Nityanund Ghose v. Kissen Kishore W.R. 1864, Act X, Rul. 82. M. 17 Ind. Cas. 587 : 17 C.L.J. 431 : 17 C.W.N. 348, Kali Prosamna Das v. Bhagaban Mali (2), Birendra Kisore v. Gagan Chandra 30 Ind. Cas. 502 : 22 C.L.J. 132, Gagan Chandra Chuckerbutty v. Birendra Kisore Manikya 30 Ind. Cas. 931 : 22 C.L.J. 135. The land was assessed and the dues were periodically paid by them direct to the Collector. In 1901, the revenue authorities made a five-year malikana...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. E.D. Sassoon and Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal190
1. This is an appeal from a judgment on admission pronounced by Mr. Justice Greaves under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The suit was instituted on the 7th May 1921 by E.D. Sassoon & Co. against Ebrahim Soleman Saleji & Co. and J.C. Galstaun for recovery of money. The claim, so far as Galstaun was concerned, was based on the following letter of guarantee written by him to the Plaintiffs on the 6th January 1921:In consideration of your advancing to Ebrahim Soleman Saleji & Co. of No. 1, Amratolla Lane in Calcutta at my request the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as a loan bearing interest at nine percent, per annum I, the undersigned John Carapiet Galstaun, hereby agree with you as follows:1. To make good any default on the part of the said Ebrahim Soleman Saleji & Co. or their successors in interest, in the payment of the said loan and all interest due thereon.2. You are to be at liberty without discharging me from liability here-under to grant time or other indulgence to...
M.L. Chakrabarty Vs. Olof Borin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal446,80Ind.Cas.419
1. This is a reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The suit, which was brought by the buyer against the seller for damages for breach of an indent contract, was instituted on the 18th July, 1922. The trial took place before the Sixth Judge who dismissed the suit on the 18th August, 1922. On the 7th September, 1922, the plaintiff made an application under Section 38 before the Chief Judge and the Sixth Judge who, directed notice to issue. The matter was adjourned from time to time till the 16th February, 1923, when the application was heard in the presence of both sides. There was a further hearing on the 22nd February 1923, when the Court reserved judgment. On the 8th March, 1923, two separate judgments were delivered, one by the Chief Judge, the other by the Sixth Judge. They disagreed in their conclusions. The judgment of the Chief Judge narrates the history of the case, contains an exposition of his view of the law, concludes with the expression ...
Srimati Haridasi Debi Vs. P.B. Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal905
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title. The disputed property belonged to one Prannath Chakraverty who left three sons Bisseswar, Panchanon and Baroda. Baroda died childless with the result that the one-third share which he had taken by right of inheritance became vested in his two brothers. Thereafter Panchanon died, leaving a widow who is the plaintiff in this litigation. The surviving brother Bisseswar subsequently died, after he had made a testamentary disposition of his properties. An application was made by the defendant for probate of his will. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. On the 24th August, 1912, the parties to the probate proceedings came to terms and a week later the probate was granted, inasmuch as the lady withdrew her opposition. On the 7th June, 1918, the lady instituted the present suit to recover possession of the one-half share of the property which belonged to her husband. Prima ...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.348
1. This is an appeal from a judgment on admission pronounced by Mr. Justice Greaves under Order XII, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The suit was instituted on the 7th May 1921 by E.D. Sassoon & Co. against Ebrahim Soleman Saleji & Co. and J.C. Galstaun for recovery of money. The claim so far as Galstaun was concerned, was based on the following letter of guarantee written by him to the plaintiffs on the 6th January 1921:In consideration of your advancing to Ebrahim Soleman Saleji & Co. of No. 1, Amratolla Lane in Calcutta at my request the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as a loan bearing interest at nine per cent. per annum I, the undersigned John Carapiet Galstaun, hereby agree with you as follows: 1. To make good any default on the part of the said Ebrahim Soleman Saleji & Co. or their successors-in-interest in the payment of the said loan and all interest due thereon.2. You are to be at liberty without discharging me from liability hereunder to grant time or other indulgence t...
Girish Chandra Gagopadhaya and anr. Vs. Sri Krishna De Nag and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal168
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit which was commenced by the plaintiffs respondents so far back as the 14th April, 1909 for apportionment of rent and for recovery of arrears. The litigation has had a chequered career during the 'last thirteen years. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the 17th January 1910. The District Judge affirmed this decision on the 21st November, 1910. On second appeal to this Court, the suit was remanded for reconsideration on the 14th March, 1913 by Jenkins, C.J. and Mullick, J. On the 9th January, 1914, the District Judge remitted the case to the Court of first instance for retrial. On the 11th May, 1915, the trial Court decreed the claim in part. On the 23rd August, 1916, the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. On second appeal to this Court, N.R. Chatterjea and Newbould, JJ., set aside the decision of Subordinate Judge on the 22nd March, 1920, and remanded the case for reconsideration. On the 4th Febru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »