Kolkata Court December 1924 Judgments
The Mohini Mills Ltd. Vs. Susama Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal626
Cuming, J.1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Companies' Act (Act VII of 1913) on behalf of the Mohini Mills Limited, to alter the Memorandum of Association of the Company. On the application being called on for hearing Mr. Langford James on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society raised a preliminary objection that the application should have been made on the Original Side of this Court.2. Mr. James' contention is as follows:- Section 3 (i) of the Act provides that the Court having jurisdiction Under this Act is the High Court having jurisdiction in the place at which the registered office of the Company is. The High Court is the Court which has jurisdiction all over Bengal within which Province Kushtia the place where the registered office of the company is. Mr James contends that the expression High Court means the Court as a whole and that the particular department of the Court which deals with such matters is the Original Side. Hence the application should have been m...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Joy Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1147,87Ind.Cas.756
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by the rule of one year's limitation as provided for in Article XI of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff's suit for declaration of his title to certain immovable property was dismissed by both the Courts below and the present second appeal is by the plaintiff against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the 5th Court of Dacca, affirming the decision of the Munsif, 2nd Additional Court of that district. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of this appeal shortly stated are these: Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 obtained a decree for possession of certain immovable property and also a decree for mesne profits to be determined in execution proceedings against the predecessors of Defendants Nos. 5 and 6. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 applied for execution of their decree, and amongst other things prayed for ascertainment of mesne profits and obtained an order for attachment of the land in suit before judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri and anr. Vs. Harendra Krishna De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1169,87Ind.Cas.32
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the District Judge of Nadia modifying a decision of the Subordinate Judge.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was for the recovery of possession of certain land from the defendants. The plaintiffs purchased the land at a sale held under the patni regulations and their case was that when they went to take possession of the land they were resisted by the defendants and were compelled to bring the suit.3. The case put forward by the defendants was that they or their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land from before the Permanent Settlement or at any rate from before the creation of the patni and that they had been recognized as tenants in possession, that their holding was a ryoti holding of some 312 bighas together with some other lands lying to the east and west of the ryoti of 312 bighas which other lands they claimed as accretions thereto. A further contention was raised on their behal...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mills, Ltd. Vs. Susama Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal586
Cuming, J.1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Companies Act (VII of 1913) on behalf of the Mohini Mills, Ltd., to alter the Memorandum of Association of the Company. On the application (being called on for hearing Mr. Langford James on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society raised a preliminary objection that the application should have been made on the Original Side of this Court.2. Mr. James' contention is as follows:3. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that the Court having jurisdiction under this Act is the High Court having jurisdiction in the place at which the registered office of the Company is. The High Court is the Court which has jurisdiction all over Bengal within which province Kushtia, the place where the registered office of the Company is, is: Mr. James contends that the expression High Court means the Court as a whole and that the particular department of the Court which deals with such matters is the Original Side. Hence the application should have been m...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Mukerji Vs. Shitikanta Banerjee, and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.679
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to and for recovery of possession of certain lands covering, it is said, 10,000 bighas in area described in the schedule to the plaint. The facts are fully set forth both in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and of my learned brother. I need not, therefore, repeat them except so far as is necessary for explaining the conclusions at which I have arrived.2. Since the date of the plaint, claim to certain lands has been abandoned. The tract on the east within stations m, n, x, v, 8, 7, 36, 85m in the Commissioner's map was given up in the trial Court, In this Court so much of the disputed land as lies north of the Settlement line of 1904 (which corresponds to the southern banks of the river at the time of Revenue Survey in 1856) was given up. Out of the Lands comprised within the Revenue Survey and the boundary lines of Kabirajpore the plaintiff's title has been found in respect of 15 chaks and the residuar...
Tag this Judgment!Nritya Gopal Mitra Vs. Jorit Manjari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal217
1. The second appeal is on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit for possession of land, decreed by the District Judge of Murshidabad on the 19th April 1922.2. The facts shortly stated are these: the plaintiff sued the defendants as trespassers with reference to the lands which admittedly comprised the holding of a tenant, Khetranath Pal, under the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of those lands as purchasers of the holding which was not transferable by custom. The defence mainly was that the entire holding had not been sold and therefore the plaintiff could not treat the holding as abandoned.3. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit but his judgment was reversed on appeal by Mr. Boss, the additional District Judge and the suit was dismissed on the 25th November 1921.4. The plaintiff filed an application for review of that judgment and a notice was issued by the learned Judge who had dismissed the suit.5. Mr. Nelson, the successor in office of Mr. Ross, heard the...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Chandra Banerjee Vs. Murlidhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.873
Chakravarti, J.1. The defendant appeals against the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland delivered on the 11th December 1923 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for refund of the purchase-money of certain goods.2. The facts are shortly these: On the 13th October 1922 the plaintiff purchased from the defendant ready goods, three cases of Black Italian for Rs. 6,002 5,6 and took open delivery of the goods on the same day from the god-owns of Messrs. Cox & Co. in three boxes of which two had already been opened and two pieces were taken out for samples. It is the plaintiff's case that the pieces were counted at the time of delivery and no question was then raised that there was any deficiency in the goods or that the goods were not up to the sample.3. It appears that the defendant on his turn had purchased the said goods from Cox & Co. and in fact on the same day paid Rs. 5,402-2-0, to Cox & Co. the price for which he had purchased the goods.4. The goods continued in the possession of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Nritya Gopal Mitra Vs. Jorit Monjari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.770
Chakravarti, J.1. This second appeal is on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit for possession of land, decreed by the District Judge of Murshidabad on the 19th April 1922.2. The facts shortly stated are these. The plaintiff sued the defendants as trespassers with reference to the lands which admittedly comprised the holding of a tenant Khetra Nath Pal under the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of those lauds as purchasers of the holding which was not transferable by custom, The defence mainly, was, that the entire holding had not been sold and, therefore, the plaintiff could not treat the holding as abandoned.3. The learned Munsif decreed the suit 'but his judgment was reversed on appeal by Mr. Ross, the Additional District Judge and the suit was dismissed on the 25th November 1921.4. The plaintiff filed an application for re-view of that judgment and a notice was issued by the learned Judge who had dismissed the suit.5. Mr. Nelson the successor-in-office of...
Tag this Judgment!Pryambada Debi Vs. Monahar Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal651
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the Plaintiff sued the two Defendants for the assessment of a fair and equitable rent on certain lands on the following allegations.2. The plaintiff is the Zemindar of a 1% annas 16 gandas share in Mouza Sangrai. The Defendant No. 1 is the putnidar under him for the whole of the share (12 annas 16 gandas) that he holds in Mouza Sangrai. Within the village there were certain Chaukidari Chakran lands. These Chaukidari Chakran lands were resumed by Government and transferred to the Zemindar by two deeds, one Ex. 1, dated the 16th October 1901, which covers 25 bighas 9 cottahs odd of land, the other Ex. 2, dated 15th April 1914, which covers 6 bighas odd of land. The Defendant has refused to pay him any rent for these lands and hence the suit.3. Defendant No. 2 contended that he had no interest in the land in dispute and this contention has been found in his favour.4. Defendant No. 1 contended that she was only in possession of 16 bighas out o...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Kanchan Barani Debi Vs. Umesh Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal807,87Ind.Cas.529
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal are these: A putni taluq was created of six mouzahs of lot Kooly within the Zamindary of the Maharaja of Burdwan by the Zamindar in favour of one Joy Chandra Hazrah in September 1820. The rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,654 per annum payable in certain instalments. The Chowkidari Chakran lands situated within the putni taluq were resumed under the village Chowkidari Act VI (B.C.) of 1870 and transferred to the Zemindar under Section 50 of the Act subject to the payment of the amount of assessment made on those lands. On the 12th May 1899, by a pattah executed on behalf of the Maharaja of Burdwan, those lands comprising 133 Bighas 6 Cottahs were settled with one Syamlal Chatterjee in putni settlement. Syamlal was then the owner of the putni taluq lot Kooly by purchase. The settlement was made on receipt of a selami of Rs. 68 and at a rental of Rs. 135-4-0. Out of the amount fixed as rent the grantee was to pay to the collecting Panc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »