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.
Sarupchand Hukumchand Vs. Madhoram Raghumall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal83,83Ind.Cas.128
Buckland, J.1. This is an application to vacate an order made on the 14th December last dismissing a suit for default under Chap. X, Rule 36 of the rules of this Court in its original jurisdiction.2. Before dealing with the facts I will refer briefly to the point taken on behalf of the defendants that I have no jurisdiction to entertain the application on the ground that, though a Judge ordinarily may re-hear and vacate an order made by him before it is drawn up and filed so as to become effective, he cannot do so with reference to an order of dismissal. The general principle is well established.3. I have been referred to In re Suffield and Watts (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 693, in which Lord Justice Fry enunciated the principle that when an order has not been perfected the Judge has power of re-considering the matter, but once completed his jurisdiction has come to an end. I myself have already had occasion to consider the principle and apply it, and I am informed that many of my learned brethre...
Kebal Ramadas and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanta Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal98
1. In this case we think that the appellant's objection on the score of irregular reception of additional evidence by the lower appellate Court should prevail. The suit was in ejectment under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. If the defendant were an under-raiyat and the plaintiff's status was that of a raiyat the notice given for the purpose of founding a right to ejectment was sufficient. The great question between the parties was whether the defendant had a higher status than that of an under-raiyat or whether the plaintiffs, in particular, having regard to the transactions to which he had consented in the past year, must be taken to have conferred upon the defendant a higher interest than that of a mere under-raiyat. In both Courts that was the substantial point of controversy.3. At the trial the tenant's parcha was put in. It appears also that the khatian was put in and there was a good deal of evidence of transactions by way of mortgage and otherwise made by the defendant w...
Phani Bhusan Roy and ors. Vs. Kunga Behari Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal262
1. In the first of these Rules, No. 897 of 1923, a Rule was issued at the instance of Phani Bhusan Roy the object of which was to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge of Dacca, dated the 14th August, 1923. It appears that at the instance of Kunja Behari Biswas who was an officer under one Ashutosh Ghose, an application was made to the Sub-Divisional Officer to draw up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, against Phani Bhusan Boy and others. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order stating that he was not satisfied, that it was necessary that proceedings should be drawn up but at the same time he directed the Police to keep an eye upon the parties and arrest them if any breach of the peace was likely to be committed. Against this order an application in revision was made to the Sessions Judge of Dacca and he has clearly passed an order which is beyond his powers in that he set aside the Magistrate's order which had in effect dismissed the application and direct...
Phani Bhusan Roy and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.167
1. In the first of these Rules, No. 897 of 1923, a Rule was issued at the instance of Phani Bhushan Roy the object of which was to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge of Dacca, dated the 14th August 1923. It appears that at the instance of Kunja Behari Biswas who was an officer under one Ashutosh Ghose, an application was made to the Sub-Divisional Officer to draw up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, against Phani Bhusan Roy and others. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order stating that he was not satisfied, that it was necessary that proceedings should be drawn up but at the same time he directed the Police to keep an eye upon the parties and arrest them if any breach of the peace was likely to be committed. Against this order an application in revision was made to the Sessions Judge of Dacca and he has clearly passed an order which is beyond his powers in that he set aside the Magistrate's order which had in effect dismissed the application and direct...
Jagneswar Sikdar Vs. Kailash Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal81
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant's case is as follows: In execution of a money-decree against the defendants he caused land belonging to them to be sold in auction; he bought it himself and took formal possession through the agency of the Court; he failed to obtain actual possession of Plots Nos. 1 and 2 and although he obtained the actual possession of Plot No. 3, he was afterwards turned out by the defendants. The defendants in answer pleaded that the plots formed part of their non-transferable occupancy jote, that they know nothing of the alleged sale until the institution of the present suit, and that the sale was brought about by the suppression of notices.2. There is no dispute about the nature of the jote of which the lands in suit form a part. The defendants have occupancy rights in the jote, and there is no custom sanctioning the transfer of the holding. On these admitted facts the Courts below held that the plaintiff had acquired nothing. They also held that the sale wa...
Profulla Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Tara Chand GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal509
Suhrawardy, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of this Rule on the ground that all the necessary parties are not before the Court. In my opinion the objection ought to prevail. The suit was brought by the petitioners against 18 tenants for rent and an ex parte decree was passed in that suit. Two of the tenants applied to have the ex parts decree set aside and the Court set aside the ex-parte decree and passed the following order, 'Miscellaneous case be allowed on contest; sale set aside, restore the suits in their original numbers.' I observe that it was a suit for rent and under the proviso to Rule 13 of Order 9, the whole suit was restored; and in this Court a Rule was obtained only against two of the defendants who were the applicants in the Court below, and the other tenants in whose favour the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit restored, were not made parties to this Rule. The effect of this omission is that, if this petition succeeds and the orde...
Kamal Mandalini Vs. Paramasukh Chakrabutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal289,90Ind.Cas.488
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a certain amount due to him on account of the diet expenses allowed to him by the Criminal Court in a case in which the defendant was the complainant and the plaintiff was cited as a witness on his behalf. The Munsif of Bolepur exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction decreed the suit.2. An objection is taken before us that the Small Cause Court Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and it is based mainly on Section 547, Cr. P.C. The facts are as follows: The plaintiff was cited as a witness on behalf of the defendant in a certain criminal case in which the defendant was the complainant. The plaintiff applied to the Court that he might be allowed the amount incurred by him as expenses for attending the Court on behalf of the complainant. On that petition the learned Sub-Divisional Officer passed the following order: 'Complainant to pay...
Bhola Nath Mitter Vs. the Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal616
Panton, J.1. The appellant Bhola Nath Mifcfcer has been convicted by Mr. Rajendra Nath Roy, an Honorary Presidency Magistrate, of offences punishable under Sections 497 and 498, I.P.C. It is found that he enticed or took away one Sikhar Basini Dasi alias Sushila Bala Dasi alias Renu whom he knew or had reason to believe to be the wife of Aprokash Chandra Ghose with intent to have illicit intercourse with her; and that, between September, 1922, and the 24th October, 1922, and again between the 15th November, 1922, and the 29th December, 1922, he committed adultery with her. There is evidence that Aprokash is by caste Kayastha and Sushila a Dom; the learned Magistrate has dealt with the case on this footing and these facts are not now disputed. Susbila, however, in spite of this humble origin appears to belong to a family of some wealth; and the defence set up by the appellant in the Court below was that a false charge had been brought against him in order to defeat his efforts to secure...
Bhola Nath Mitter Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal488
Panton, J.1. The appellant, Bhola Nath Mitter, has been convicted by Mr. Rajendra Nath Ray, an Honorary Presidency Magistrate, of offences punishable tinder Sections 497 and 498 of the Penal Code. It is found that he enticed or took away one Sikhar Basini Dasi alias Sushila Bala Dasi alias Renu, whom he knew or had reason to believe to be the wife of Aprokash Chandra Ghose, with intent to have illicit intercourse with her; and that between September 1922 and the 24th October 1922, and again between 15th November 1922 and the 29th December 1922, he committed adultery with her. There is evidence that Aprokash is by caste a Kayesth and Sushila a Dom; the Learned Magistrate has dealt with the case on this footing, and these facts are not now disputed. Sushila however, in spite of this humble origin, appears to belong to a family of some wealth; and the defence set up by the appellant in the Court below was that a false charge had been brought against him in order to defeat his efforts to s...
Hursuk Das-thakur Das Vs. Gouri Charan Law and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.796
1. This Rule was grantee calling upon the Rent Controller to show cause why a certain order of the 22nd September 1924 dismissing the petitioners application for standardisation of rent in respect of premises No. 26 Khangrapattj Road should not he set aside and the Rent Controller directed to deal with the application on its merits. The petitioners took a lease for 10 years of premises Nos. 23 23-1, 24, 25 and 26 Khangrapatty Street at a rental of Rs. 325 a month. The petitioners let out four of these premises in November 1918 at a rental of Rs. 266 and used premises No. 26 for residental purposes. On the expiry of the lease on the 1st of February 1924 the landlord who is the opposite party before us took possession of premises Nos. 23, 23-1, 24 and 25 Khaugrapatty Street and demanded rent at Rs. 250 a month for premises No. 26. The petitioners thereupon applied before the Rent Controller for fixing of standard rent for premises No. 26. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›