Kolkata Court July 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.
Adwaita Chandra Saha Vs. the Chittagong Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal102,84Ind.Cas.747
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the decree obtained by the appellant against one Azgarali and the decree obtained by Azgarali against the Appellant can be set off against each other.2. It appears that the Appellant obtained a money decree for Rs. 1,129-12-6 against Azgarali on the 21st August 1912. Subsequently, in execution of a decree obtained by the Appellant against Azgarali upon a mortgage, the properties of the latter were put up to sale and purchased by the Appellant. Azgarali applied for setting aside the sale and it was set aside and an order for restoration of the properties to Azgarali and for mesne profits payable by the Appellant to Azgarali namely, Rs. 614-12-9, was passed on the 29th August 1919. In execution of his decree the appellant attached the decree obtained by Azgarali against him. Subsequently, on the 12th April 1920, the Chittagong Company, Ltd. obtained a decree for Rs. 1,635 against Azgarali and they attached Azgarali's decree against the a...
Muller Maclean and Co. Vs. S.M. Ataulla and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal320
Page, J.1. In this case the plaintiff Company, which is incorporated in the United States of America, has obtained a decree for the value of eight bills of exchange, the value of six being stated in the dollar currency of the United States, and the value of two in sterling. The question which now falls for determination is whether the decretal amount in rupees is to be calculated in accordance with the rate of exchange prevailing on the respective dates when the bills matured for payment, or, as the plaintiffs contend, with the rate of exchange prevailing at the date when the decree was passed. In the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary, I am of opinion that the decretal amount in the case of each bill is to be calculated in accordance with the rate of exchange prevailing on the date when the cause of action arose. In my judgment the same rule is to be applied whether the cause of action is for a debt or for damages, and whether it sounds in contract or in tort....
Charu Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.810
1. The appellants in Appeal No. 408 were four persons named Charu Chandra Ghose, Akhoy Kumar Rooj, Akhoy Kumar Pal and Jiban Chandra Roy, alias Jiban Krishna Roy; the latter died after the appeal had been filed and at the present moment the appellants are the three first named persons. In appeal No. 409, the appellants are three in number, namely, Ganpat Pandey, Rajanikanta Samui and Charitar Muchi, alias Ram Charitar Muchi. The above-named seven persons along with six others, were, tried under Section 120B read with Section 420, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan and a Jury. The Jury convicted the said seven persons and the learned Judge agreeing with the verdict of the Jury, sentenced the said seven persons to variou terms of imprisonment as under, vis., the accused, Charu Chandra Ghose to three years rigorous imprisonment; the accused, Akhoy Kumar Rooj and Jiban Chandra Roy, to two years rigorous imprisonment; the accused,...
Jaharlal Sadhukhan and ors. Vs. Chandra Kanta Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal265
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of the 24-Parganas affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge, fourth Court of Alipur, refusing the execution of a Small Cause Court decree on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The appellants obtained a decree in the Presidency Small Cause Court on 4th December 1918. Their case is that on 11th August 1919 they made an application to the Small Cause Court Judge for transfer of the decree to the Hooghly District for execution and that by this application their application for execution made on 9th January 1922 was an application within-time. The lower appellate Court has held : firstly, that they have not proved that any application was made for transmission of the decree; and secondly, that the application was not in accordance with law.3. As regards the first point : we think the learned District Judge was wrong in refusing to admit in evidence a certified copy of the proceedings of the Small Cause Court Judge w...
Bank of Bengal Vs. William Arratoon Lucas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal578
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff to enforce a charge upon immovable property for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 78,504-10-2 with interest pendente lite and costs. The transactions which have led up to this litigation are evidenced by four deeds, whose substance must be stated concisely for the elucidation of the points in controversy.2. Lucas, the first defendant, is a dealer in jute. On the 6th April, 1908, he executed an equitable mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called A) by deposit of title-deeds in favour of his broker, Thaddeus, who financed him in his business. On the 8th July, 1910, Lucas executed in favour of Vertannes and Bertram, an English mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called B) of the properties covered by A. According to the recitals in this document, Lucas was indebted to Thaddeus under A to the extent of Rs. 63,560 approximately. The arrangement was that the mortgagees should be the sole brokers of the mortgagor during t...
Bank of Bengal Vs. W.A. Lucas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal185
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff to enforce a charge upon immovable property for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 78,504-10-2 with interest pendente lite and costs. The transactions which have led up to this litigation are evidenced by four deeds, whose substance must be stated concisely for the elucidation of the points in controversy.2. Lucas, the first defendant, is a dealer in jute. On the 6th April 1908, he executed an equitable mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called A) by deposit of title deeds in favour of his broker Thaddeus who financed him in his business. On the 8th July 1910 Lucas executed in favour of Vertannes and Bertram, an English mortgage (which for the sake of brevity may be called B) of the properties covered by A. According to the recitals in this document, Lucas was indebted to Thaddeus under A to the extent of Rs. 63,560 approximately. The arrangement was that the mortgagees should be the sole brokers of the mortgagor during the co...
Chandra Mohan Ganguly Vs. Jnanendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal400
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title as Shebait. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree which has been reversed on appeal by the District Judge.2. The subject-matter of the litigation admittedly belonged to one Gobinda Chandra Ganguly, who, shortly before his death, which took place on the 29th January 1897, made testamentary disposition on the 29th October, 1896. The names of the members of this family appear in the following genealogical table:Gobinda Chandra Ganuly.w. Taramani.| -----------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Kshetra Moha. Bhubanmohan. Chandramohna Rajkrishna Annada Debi.Deft. 4 | (Plaintiff). d. 19-7-1918 m. Bhairab| Chandra| |----------------- || | |Bama Hem Jnanendra NathCharan Chandra BanerjeeDeft. 2 Deft. 3 Deft. 13. The testator had a garden in the northern suburb of Calcutta, which covered an area of more than 12 bighas. He had a map of the ga...
inatulla Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal618
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensing to show cause why the Criminal' Appeal No. 91(a) of 1923 filed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge should not be re-heard, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. When the rule came on for hearing the learned Vakil in support of the Rule was heard at considerable length. No cause was shown on behalf of the Crown. An explanation was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate of Mymensing, in which nothing was said about the question of the re-hearing of the' appeal.3. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to come to an independent decision of his-own upon the evidence adduced in this, ease and that his judgment was not in; accordance with law. The judgment complained against ran as follows : I had the misfortune to preside over the trial of the counter case. Appellants' pleader, however, declines ...
Peary Lal Ray Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal913,83Ind.Cas.446
Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a tract of alluvial land which has been assessed by the revenue authorities under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, 1847. The order of the Board of Revenue under Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 is embodied in a letter dated the 28th November, 1912 and a petition by the plaintiff to review the decision was rejected on the 29bh June, 1914. The present suit was thereupon instituted on the 29th June, 1915, for declaration that the disputed tract was not 'added' land within the meaning of Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 and that the assessment was consequently without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs further prayed for consequential relief by way of refund of the sums paid by them, as revenue under protest. The suit was defended by the Secretary of State for India in Council on the merits as also on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and no right of suit, and, further, that the suit was barred by limitation. On these plead...
Chandra Mohan Ganguli Vs. Jnanendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.874
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in 4 suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title as shebait. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree which has been reversed on appeal by the District Judge.2. The subject-matter of the litigation admittedly belonged to one Gobinda Chandra Ganguli who, shortly before his death, which took place on the 29th January 1897, made a testamentary disposition on the 29th October 1898. The names of the members of his family appear on the following genealogical table: Gobind Chandra Ganguli, W. Taramani | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | | |Kshetra Mohan, Bhuban Mohan Chandra Mohan, plaintiff |defandant No. 4. | | | | ----------------------- | | | |Bama Charan, Hem Chandra, | defendant No. 2 defendant No. 3 | | ---------------------------------- | | Raj Krishna, Ananda Debi, married died on 19th July 1918 Bhairab Chandra. | Jnanendra Nath Banerjee,defendant No. 13. The testator h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »