Kolkata Court December 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.
Kundalmul Dalmia Vs. W. Dyer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal551
Greaves, J.1. The main question which arises in these three Rules is the same and it will be convenient to deal with them in one judgment considering first the main question which is common to all three rules and dealing later with any special matter which arises in one or other of the rules.2. By Section 1(1) (4) of the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920 (Bengal Act No. III of 1920), it was provided that the Act should come into force on such date as the Local Government might by notification direct and that it should be in force for a period of three years from the date of the commencement of the Act.3. The Act came into force under a notification in the Calcutta Gazette on the 5th May 1920.4. By the Calcutta Rent (Amendment) Act, 1923 (Bengal Act No. II of 1923), the period of the duration of the Act of 1920 was extended until the end of March 1924.5. By the Calcutta Rent (Amendment) Act, 1924 (Bengal Act No. 1 of 1924) the duration of the Act was extended until the end of March 1927 but it wa...
Sadasook Kothari Vs. Chaitram Rambilash and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal218
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit from a judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland, dated the 4th of December 1923, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The facts which I shall shortly state are as follows: By a contract dated the 31st July 1919, to the terms of which I shall presently refer, the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sold and the defendants, the respondents before us, purchased 1000 bales of Naraingunje jute. According to the terms of the contract shipment was to take place during August and/or September 1919. On the 23rd September 1919, in pursuance of the contract, the plaintiff shipped 500 bales of jute on board the Flat 'Dwarka.' The bill-of-lading in respect of these bales was made out in the name of the defendants as consignees. On the 25th September 1919, according to the case for the appellant, the usual documents were presented through the International Banking Corporation to the defendants for payment of 90 per cent. of the value in terms o...
Bhowanidas-ramgobind Vs. Pannachand-luchmipat and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal801
Page, J.1. This is an application by the first defendant for leave to enter an appearance, and for a stay of the proceedings pending a reference to arbitration of the matters in dispute in this suit. In the plaint this defendant is described as ' Pannachand Luchmipat, a mercantile firm carrying on business at 33, Armenian Street, in the town of Calcutta as well as at 2, Turner Road, Chitpore.' The defendant alleges that this firm has never been served with a writ of summons in the suit. The onus of proving the service is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the summons was duly served on two occasions by substituted service. As regards the first alleged service there is evidence that in June 1924 the plaintiff's gomasta went with the Sheriff's peon to No. 33, Armenian Street, in order to serve the defendant there: that he failed to effect personal service, and that after calling upon the defendant three times to accept service a copy of the summons was affixed to the outer do...
Bhowanidas Ramgobind Vs. Pannachand Luchmipat and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal453
Page, J.1. This is an application by the first defendant for leave to enter an appearance, and for a stay of the proceedings pending a reference to arbitration of the matters in dispute in this suit. In the plaint this defendant is described as ' Pannachand Luchmipat, a mercantile firm carrying on business at 33, Armenian Street, in the town of Calcutta as well as at 2, Turner Road, Chitpore'. The defendant alleges that this firm has never been served with a writ of summons in the suit. The onus of proving the service is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the summons was duly served on two occasions by substituted service. As regards the first alleged service there is evidence that in June 1924 the plaintiff's gomasta went with the Sheriff's peon to No. 33, Armenian Street, in order to serve the defendant there: that he failed to effect personal service, and that after calling upon the defendant three times to accept service a copy of the summons was affixed to the outer do...
T. Wang Vs. Sona Wangdi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal812,(1925)ILR52Cal559,87Ind.Cas.633
Suhrawardy and Cuming, JJ.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law, which, so far as we are aware, is not covered by authority. In execution of a money decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent, the respondent contended that the decree had been fully satisfied oat of Court and that the appellant practising fraud on the respondent did not certify payment in Court. The appellant contended that the uncertified payment could not be enquired into under Order XXI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, but the learned Subordinate Judge in the execution Court decided to investigate the allegation of fraud. After he had examined several witnesses, the parties filed an application referring the dispute about payment to two arbitrators and an umpire. The case was thereupon referred to the arbitrators who by their award found a much lesser amount due to the appellant than he was claiming in execution. Various objections to the legality of the award were raised by the appellant...
Rajendra Nath Dutta Vs. Srimati Bhabini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.811
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for the partition of certain properties. His case was that the properties in suit belonged to one Srimanta. Srimanta left three sons and three daughters. The sons were Nitai Makhan and Ram Lal. Two of the sons Makhan and Nitai died unmarried after the death of Srimanta. Their mother PraMoyi, therefore, inherited their share of the property. Plaintiff purchased this share from Prasanna Moyi. Plaintiff's case; is that he has in a previous Suit No. 670 of 1916 established his title to these lands and that as he has been dispossessed of some of the lands he has brought this suit for partition. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of Rakhal son of Prem Moyi one of the daughters of Prosanna Moyi. Her case was that plots Nos. 2, 3, 7 and part of plot No. 4 were purchased from Ram Lal the husband of Hira Moni defendant No. 2 and that the plaintiff has no claim to partition.2. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plainti...
The Official Assignee of Bengal Vs. Yokohama Specie Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal640,87Ind.Cas.392
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from the judgment of my learned brother Greaves, J., delivered on the 14th August 1923, whereby ha dismissed an application by the Official Assignee for an order, that a deed, dated the 14th July 1920, executed by or on behalf of a firm of Mogi & Co., in favour of the Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, might be declared void and inoperative. The application further was for an account of the Bank's dealings with the assets of the insolvents under the said deed, for an order for the payment to the Official Assignee of the sum found due, for a declaration that the Bank was not entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 20,000 and for an order for the payment of the said sum to the Official Assignee.2. The material facts are as follows:Messrs. Mogi & Co. were a Japanese firm with the Head Office in Japan, carrying on business in Calcutta and Bombay, and in other parts of the world. It appears from the evidence of the. Sub-Manager of the Yokoham...
Ashutosh Roy and ors. Vs. Haris Chandra Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal625
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Satkhira under the provisions of Section 144, Cr. P.C. It appears that there is a dispute existing between the first and the second parties in respect of two rival Hats. The Magistrate has found that the first party are the proprietors of the older Hat, the Hingulganj Hat and that the second party's Hat at Basantapur has been recently opened, and he further held that this dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace. On these findings he issued an injunction on the 22nd September 1924 against 13 persons of the second party directing them to abstain from holding or attending the Hat at or near Basantapur on Sundays and Thursdays and not to do any unlawful acts by taking dealer's boats to Basantapur Hat by force or by committing violence to the people so as to dissuade them from attending Hingulganj Hat and not to commit any breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. On the 28th October ...
Surendra Nath Tagore Vs. K.S. Bannerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal630
1. This Rule is directed against two orders of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal, dated the 30th August and the 26th September 1924. The matter arose in this way. Land acquisition proceedings with regard to certain lands in Upper Circular Road were pending before the Land Acquisition Collector. The Petitioner was the mortgagee in respect of three properties with only one of which we are concerned for the purposes of this application, it being No. 123-2, Upper Circular Road. The Petitioner put in a claim in respect of the money awarded on the 19th September 1922. After he had put in this claim he was informed that an award had been made in respect of one of the properties, namely, No. 123 2, Upper Circular Road, on the 31st August 1922. The Petitioner states that he did not appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, as he had had no notice served on him of the proceedings. On the 28th November 1922, the Collector made a reference under the provisions of Section...
Ashutose Roy and ors. Vs. Harish Chandra Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.810
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sutkhira under the provision of Section 144, Cr. P.C. It appears that there is a dispute existing between the first and the second parties in respect of two rival hats. The Magistrate has found that the first party are proprietors of the older hat the Hingulganj hat and that the second party's hat at Basaritapur has been recently opened, and he further held that this dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace On these findings he issued an injunction on the 22nd September 1924 against 13 persons of the second party directing them to abstain from holding or attending the hat at or near Basantapur, on Sundays and Thursdays and not to do any unlawful acts by taking dealers boats to Basantapur hat by force or by committing violence to the people so as to dissuade them from attending Hingulganj hat and not to commit any breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. On the 28th October the Po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »