Kolkata Court January 1924 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.
Anath Bandhu Nundy and ors. Vs. Wahid Ali Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1022,85Ind.Cas.654
1. This Rule was granted on the 11th of January last against an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of Shahazanpur ordering that the second party should not take possession of certain water to the exclusion of the enjoyment of the right of use of the first party during the period Aswin to Chait. In the month of January 1923 a report was made by the police to the Magistrate with regard to the likelihood of a breach of the peace as to the fishery which was in dispute in these proceedings. The Magistrate considered on the report that the matter was urgent and that the breach of the peace was imminent and accordingly he issued an order under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C., on the second party to prevent them interfering with the fishery. He made the order ex parte and gave the second party leave to coma in to discharge the order. This they did on the next day which was the 20th January 1923. The Magistrate thereupon discharged the order which he had made under Section 144. and on the same d...
Arjun Kapali and ors. Vs. Asvini Kumar Kapali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal286
Suhrawardy, J.1. The point raised in this Rule is whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for the recovery of the amount claimed or his only remedy is to execute the compromise-decree to enforce delivery of the articles or payment of their value. The facts are that the plaintiff had brought a suit for partition and khas possession of certain lands against the defendants and others in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge of Comilla. That suit was decreed on compromise. One of the terms of it was that the plaintiff was to get from the defendant four maunds of Jub and ten maunds of paddy. These articles not having been delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, he has brought the present suit for recovery of the price thereof in the Court of the Munsiff of Nabinagar exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction. The defendant, amongst other defences, raised the plea that no suit would lie in the Small Cause Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 47, Civil, Procedure Co...
DalaruddIn Haldar and anr. Vs. Deolar Bun Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal570
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule has been issued on the ground that the learned Small Cause Court Judge was not justified in law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's suite was filed on the 24th January, 1923 and there were no less than 10 days fixed for the hearing of the suit which was postponed on the application of either party or of both. The last adjournment was on the application of the plaintiffs. On the 25th June, the plaintiffs again applied for adjournment. The order was to the following effect: 'Plaintiff is directed to pay Rs. 5 as costs to the defendant.' On the same date, probably later in the day, the following order was passed: 'No costs paid. The plaintiff's petition is rejected. The suit is dismissed with costs.' It is curious that, when the Court directed the plaintiff to pay Rs. 5 as coats, apparently for the adjournment he had prayed for, no further date was fixed for the hearing of the case. The order as it stands looks as if the Court fined the plaintiff...
Aejun Kapali and ors. Vs. Asvini Kumar Kapali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.317
Suhrawardy, J.1. The point raised in this Rule is whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for the recovery of the amount claimed or his only remedy is to execute the compromise-decree to enforce delivery of the articles or payment of their value. The facts are that the plaintiff had brought a suit for partition and khas possession of certain lands against the defendants and others in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge of Comilla. That suit was decreed on compromise. One of the terms of it was that the plaintiff was to get from the defendant four maunds of Jub and ten maunds of paddy. These articles not having been delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, he has brought the present suit for recovery of ithe price thereof in the Court of the Munsif of Nabinagar exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction. The defendant, amongst other defences, raised the plea that no suit would lie in the Small Cause Court-by virtue of the provisions of Section 47, Civil Procednie Cod...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Purna Chandra Gho ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal611
1. Purna Chandra Ghosh was, on the complaint of one Asutosh Das Gupta, charged with an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried by a Deputy Magistrate of Dacca who acquitted him on the 31st May, 1923. The Government have preferred this appeal against his acquittal and a rule has also been issued against the acquittal at the instance of the complainant. For the proper understanding of the matters which arise from this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts.2. In the year 1908, three brothers were the owners of the Bhowal Estate at Jaidebpur. In the year 1908, the second brother Kumar Ramendra Narain Rai, fell ill and came to Calcutta for treatment. He was accompanied by the complainant, who is a qualified medical practitioner, and who went as his family physician. He was treated in Calcutta by Dr. Sarbadhikari who advised him to take a change and accordingly in April 1909 the Kumar went to Darjeeling accompanied by the complainant, by his wife and her brothe...
Joymangal Sen Vs. Sarafat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal299a
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong decreeing an appeal preferred by the opposite party from the decision of the Munsiff and setting aside the sale of the disputed property. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a landlord obtained a decree in a rent suit against the tenant Nayan Khan. The suit was valued at Rs. 20 and odd annas. It was not disputed that the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding. The petitioner, attempted to execute the decree. The opposite party made an application for deposit of the decretal amount under Section 170(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground that he was a purchaser of the holding from the tenant judgment-debtor. This application was summarily refused by the Munsiff on the ground that he did not believe that the purchase made by him was a bona fide one. The opposite party therefore, preferred an appeal, but before the appeal came on for hearing the holding in dispute ...
Shamlal Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal980,85Ind.Cas.716
1. The two accused in this case have bean convicted of an offence under the provisions of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Coda, that is to say, abducting a woman with intent to commit rape. Each of the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.2. Now 12 points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellants. First, it is said that there has been no sufficient compliance with Section 342, of the Cr. P.C. Apparently, what happened is this that the accused were asked if they desired to make any further statement to what they had made before the Committing Magistrate and they refused to do so or to call any evidence. Now we have had occasions to point out more than once that the proper method of applying Section 342 is to bring to the attention of the accused specific matters which appear in the evidence against them and that merely questioning them generally as to whether they have anything to say or anything to add to what was said before ...
Joymangalsen Vs. Sabafat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.236
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong decreeing an appeal preferred by the opposite party from the decision of the Munsif and setting aside the sale of the disputed property. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a landlord obtained a decree in a rent suit against the tenant Nayan Khan. The suit was valued at Rs. 20 and odd annas. It was not disputed that the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding. The petitioner attempted to execute the decree. The opposite party made an application for deposit of the decretal amount under Section 170 15 Ind. Cas. 486 : 17 C.W.N. 84 : 16 C.L.J. 542 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground that he was a purchaser of the holding from the tenant judgment-debtor. This application was summarily refused by the Munsif on the ground that he did not believe that the purchase made by him was a bona fide one. The opposite party, therefore, preferred an appeal, but before the appeal ...
Emperor and Ashutosh Das Gupta Vs. Purna Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.631
1. Puma Chandra Ghose was, on the complaint of one Ashutosh Das Gupta, charged with an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried by a Deputy Magistrate of Dacca who acquitted him on the 31st May 1923. The Government have preferred this appeal against his acquittal and a Rule has also been issued against the acquittal at the instance of the complainant. For the proper understanding of the matters which arise from this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts.2. In the year 1908 three brothers were the owners of the Bhowal Estate at Jaidebpur. In the year 1908, the second brother Kumar Ramendra Narain Rai, fell ill and came to Calcutta for treatment. He was accompanied by the complainant, who is a qualified medical practitioner, and who went as his family physician. He was treated in Calcutta by Dr. Sarbadhikari who advised him to take a change and accordingly in April 1909 the Kumar went to Darjeeling accompanied by the complainant, by his wife and her brother,...
Abhoy Sankar Mazumdar and ors. Vs. Satyendra Prasanna Bose Majumdar an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal981,85Ind.Cas.594
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit wherein the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of khas possession of certain lands upon declaration of their title thereto.2. The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint was that the lands were situate in Mouza Benodepore which appertains to plaintiff's estate bearing Touzi No. 831 of the Faridpore Collectorate and were comprised in the residue of the thak of that Mouza, that the lands were formerly in the occupation of the plaintiffs-tenants and subsequently in their khas possession and that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who were the proprietors of the adjoining estate bearing Touzi No. 832 in collusion with the other defendants got the lands recorded in the District Settlement within their estate, and afterwards dispossessed the plaintiffs.3. The defence in substance was that the lands appertained to Taluk No. 832 belonging to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, that the plaintiffs had no title thereto or possession therein, that the suit was barred b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »