Kolkata Court August 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.
Habibar Rahaman Vs. Saidannessa Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.949
1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order made by the District Judge in favour, of two mutwallis of a Muhammadan wakf, authorising them to grant a lease of the wakf property. The petitioner before us, who is another mutwalli, preferred an objection, but did not appear to support it, with the result that an order in favour of the applicants was made ex parte, the petitioner thereupon appealed to this Court but the appeal was dismissed as incompetent: Habibar Rahman v. Saidannssa Bibi 77 Ind. Cas. 907 : 38 C.L.J. 358. The petitioner now assails the order of the District Judge as made without jurisdiction, because he dealt with the matter on the basis of an application and not of a plaint.2. It is well settled that the District Judge his jurisdiction to authorise dealings with wakf property in the same way as a kazi might have done under the Muhammadan Law; see the judgment of Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ., in Shama Churn Roy v. Abdul Kabeer 3 C.W.N. 158. This was fol...
Maharajah Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Son of Maharajah Birendra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal286
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application in connexion with a batch of 47 appeals now pending before His Majesty in Council. The Privy Council numbers are 118 to 164 of 1923. The appeals arise out of certain settlement proceedings under the Bengal Tenancy Act and they raise a question between the appellant to England and various tenants of his as to the right of the appellant to an enhancement of rent. The High Court decided against the appellant and his application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was filed on 10th December 1923.2. It appears that when the cases were before this Court the Deputy Registrar was representing the interest of certain minors among the tenants, and for the purpose of the application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council there was an order made on 8th February 1924 that the Deputy Registrar should continue to represent the minors when he represented in the High Court appeals, and certain provision was made for his costs. A certificate that the cas...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Manmatha Bhusan C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal495
Richardson, J.1. The four accused were tried by the Magistrate of Asansol on two charges imputing criminal conspiracy to cheat the Best Indian Railway Co. The charges were laid under Section 420 read with Section 120-B and under Section 417 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. That is to say, on the same evidence the accused were charged with conspiring to cheat the East Indian Railway Co., in each of the two ways defined in Section 415. The Magistrate convicted the accused on both charges, but passed sentence only under the charge which refers to Section 420-B. He sentenced all the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In addition, he imposed on the accused Biseswar and Manmatha a fine of Rs. 300, each and on Ramdin Lal and Hriday Narain a fine of Rs. 500 each.2. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Burdwan, the convictions and sentences were set aside and the accused were acquitted.3. We have now to deal with an appeal by the Local Government from the Sessions Jud...
Legal Remembrancer Vs. Manmatha Bhusan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal250
Richardson, J.1. I now come to the controversial part of the case. At the trial evidence was led to show the part which each of the accused played in the alleged criminal conspiracy. On that evidence the Courts below came to substantially the same conclusions of fact. They differed as to the result. The learned Sessions Judge, overruling the learned Magistrate, held that the facts found did not disclose the offences charged. The accused make no admissions as to the facts and the appeal before us has so far been argued with reference only to the questions, mainly questions of law, arising out of the difference of opinion between the two Courts. For the purposes of the present discussion therefore, we assume, without deciding that the facts have been correctly found by those Courts.2. To simplify matters, I will deal mainly with the cases of Manmatha and Ram Din Lal. As against Manmatha it is found that in various ways, by manipulating his special ledger, or by making unauthorized entrie...
Legal Remembrancer Vs. Manmatha Bhusan Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.554
Thomas Richardson, J.1. The four accused were tried by the Magistrate of Asansol on two charges imputing criminal conspiracy to cheat the East Indian Railway Co. The charges were laid under Section 420 read with Section 120B and under Section 417 read with Section 120B of the Penal Code. That is to say, on the same evidence the accused were charged with conspiring to cheat the East Indian Railway Co. in each of the two ways denned in Section 415. The Magistrate convicted the accused on both charges but passed sentence only under the charge which refers to Section 420B read with Section 120B. He sentenced all the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In addition he imposed on the accused Biseswar and Manmatha a fine of Rs. 300 each and on Ramdin Lal and Hriday Narain a fine of Rs. 500 each.2. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Burdwan, the convictions and sentences were set aside and the accused were acquitted.3. We have now to deal with an appeal by the Local Government...
Pramode Nath Roy Vs. BasiruddIn Quazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal704
1. The question raised in this appeal turns upon the construction of Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and arises under the following circumstances : The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit on the 14th of April, 1919, for recovery of rent at an enhanced rate under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as well as for additional rent under Section 52 of that Act against the defendant who is a tenant.2. The defendant put in his written statement on the 2nd of June, 1919. Subsequently on the 4th of July, 1921, he raised an objection that the suit could not be proceeded with, having regard to the provisions of Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as an order had been made in June, 1920 under Section 101 directing the preparation of a record-of-rights.3. The Court of first instance disallowed the objection, tried the suit on the merits and partially decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the learned District Judge set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and...
Gobind Das Nath Vs. Nritya Kali Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal874
Mookerjee, J.1. This application made by the learned vakil for the appellant raises a question as to the true effect of the second paragraph of Rule 25 of chapter 9 of the rules of this Court in the Appellate Side. The first paragraph of the rule provides as follows. 'Every such respondent shall within two weeks after service upon him of the notice required by Rule 23 deliver to the Deputy Registrar a list, in the form in Rule 16, of the papers, other than those inserted in the appellant's lists and relevent to the subject-matter of the appeal, to which such respondent desires that reference shall be made by the Court at the hearing of the appeal, and which shall be inserted in the paper book at such respondent's expense. Such list shall be termed 'The respondent's List.' The second paragraph provides that when the respondent intends to take any objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal and the taking of which is subject to the proviso contained in Order 41 Rul...
Emperor Vs. Nabab Ali Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal705,(1924)ILR51Cal236
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mymensingh because he found himself in disagreement with the unanimous verdict of acquittal returned by the Jury in this case in which the accused Nabab Ali Sarkar was prosecuted and tried under Section 466 of the Penal Code. The facts on which the prosecution is based are these. In a rent suit, No. 668 of 1922, of the Third Munsif's Court at Tangail in which the plaintiffs, who were the Nawab of Dacca and others, sued the defendant, Yarat Sheikh, for arrears of rent, the defendant, Yarat Sheikh, filed some dakhilas along with his written statement pleading payment. That was an the 27th January 1928. After some adjournments, at the instance of the plaintiffs, the suit was specially fixed for hearing on the 6th March 1923. On that date, the defendant's pleader represented to the Munsif that his client was being unnecessarily harassed by the plaintiffs. On that the Mun...
Pramada Nath Roy Vs. BasiruddIn Quanji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal230,81Ind.Cas.993
Chatterjea and Panton, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal turns upon the construction of Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff, appellant, instituted a suit on the 14th of April, 1919, for recovery of rent at an enhanced rate under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as well as for additional rent under Section 52 of that Act against the defendant, who is a tenant.2. The defendant put in his written statement on the 2nd of June, 1919. Subsequently on the 4th of July, 1921, he raised an objection that the suit could not be proceeded with having regard to the provisions of Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as an order had been made in June, 1920, under Section 101 directing the preparation of a record-of-rights.3. The Court of first instance disallowed the objection, tried the suit on merits and partially decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the learned District Judge set aside the decree of the Cou...
Sita Nath Basak Vs. Mohini Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal595
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a copyright suit.2. The plaintiff is the author of a book entitled 'Adarshalipi-o-Sharal Barna Parichay' which was first published on the 3rd November, 1902, and has since then passed through numerous editions. In 1919, the defendants published two books called respectively 'Nutan Pathsala Adarshalipi' and 'Nutan Maktab Adarshalipi.' The present suit was instituted on the 12th May, 1920, for damages and injunction. The damages, claimed amounted to Rs. 400 and the injunction was valued at Rs. 9. On the 17th August, 1920, the first defendant alone filed a written statement. Thereupon seven issues were raised on the 4th September, 1920, in the following terms : (1) 'Has the copyright of the plaintiff been duly registered? If not, is the suit maintainable? (2) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (3) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of causes of action? (4) Is the suit against public policy? (5) Has the defendant infringed the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »