Kolkata Court February 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.
Kali Prasanno Chakravarty Vs. Najabulla Jamadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal497
1. It is an unfortunate case. It was started nearly seven years ago and bad a chequered career. It came to this Court twice. It is not necessary to relate the history of its progress. It is enough for our present purpose to refer to a few dates. The suit was decreed by the first Court and there was an appeal to the lower Appellate Court. There was also an application for review of judgment before the lower Appellate Court, which was finally granted on the 20th August, 1920. An appeal was preferred to this Court against the order granting review, on the 30th August, 1920. On the 4th September, 1920, the learned Judge, having granted the review, fixed the 25th September peremptorily for the rehearing of the appeal. On the 25th September, the appellant before us applied for an adjournment on the ground that he had sent all the papers in connection with the case to his pleader in the High Court in order to file an appeal, and as the pleader had left Calcutta during the long vacation he had...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Nosharan Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal296
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the decree-holder-petitioner attached certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The opposite party laid a claim to the property attached on the ground that ho was a usufructuary mortgagee in possession and prayed that the attachment might be withdrawn. There was an investigation and Court below allowed the claim and passed the following order regarding attachment:As a usufructuary mortgagee in possession, the claimant is entitled to an order of removal of attachment. The claim is allowed. The attached property be released from attachment.2. This Rule has been obtained to have this order set aside.3. It is urged by the petitioner that the order is wrong in law. He contends that what he attached was the interest of the judgment-debtor in the property. That interest has now been found to be only the equity of redemption and his attachment ought to be confined to that interest. The whole attachment ought not to have been withdrawn but that the equity ...
Bhola Nath Nandi and anr. Vs. Kedar Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal353
1. The two petitioners before us have been convicted under the provisions of Section 323 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45 each. The ground urged before us in support of the Rule is as follows. On the 10th of August, 1923, the evidence was closed and the case was adjourned for judgment to the l6th of August). It appears from the order-shoot that the Magistrate notified the parties that he would hold a local inspection of the place of the occurrence on the 12th of August and we are told, and it is not disputed, that when the Magistrate visited the locality on the 12th the parties were there. After the Magistrate had made his local inspection he gave judgment on the 16th of August convicting the accused as we have already stated. After he had delivered his judgment he made a note in the order sheet regarding the result of his inspection. It is urged on behalf of the accused that they have been prejudiced by what the Magistrate has done and it is said that if h...
Srish Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Sinha Roy and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal522,79Ind.Cas.369
Page, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent alleged to be due. The plaintiff and the defendants are all co-sharers in a patni. The defendant No. 1 is also a darpatnidar in respect of these premises under the patnidars. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that it is not maintainable in its present form, inasmuch as a suit for relief such as that claimed in these proceedings must be brought by all the co-sharers; or, at any rate, it must be shown that the co-sharers who are made defendants had not joined as plaintiffs are so joined as defendants because they have refused to be joined as co-plaintiffs. The question before us is as to whether or not the view taken by the lower Courts is correct in law. Dr. Kanjilal, who has argued the case with ingenuity, has urged that the decree of the Court below is wrong because the Court below has misconceived the nature of the proceedings which the plaintiff has begun. His first contention is that t...
Nalini Bhusan Gupta Vs. Ali Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal877,(1924)ILR51Cal643,79Ind.Cas.346
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is a suit for rent for the years 1322 to 1325 at the rate of Rs. 33 per annum, and interest on arrears of rent has also been claimed. The claim for rent is based upon a kabuliat, dated the 23rd June 1875. The defence was that rent was not as claimed by the plaintiff but the actual rent was Rs. 28-12-9, the balance being in the nature of an abwab and hence irrecoverable. The determination of tills question depends upon the construction to be pat upon the kabuliat. A large number of cases have been placed before us in which the question as to whether a portion of the rent claimed was abwab or not was raised and decided in one way or the other on the construction of the contract in each particular case. It will not be necessary, therefore, to examine those cases as we are called upon to construe the contract in the present case. It will serve no useful purpose to seek help from other forms of contract in interpreting the terms of the contract in this case, as the lea...
East Indian Railway Co. Vs. Jogpat Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal725,(1924)ILR51Cal615
Page, J.1. In this case some important and interesting questions are raised in respect of the obligation of a Railway Company towards the owner of goods consigned to it for transportation. On the 24th January, 1922, 12 tins of ghee were consigned to the E.I. Railway at Arrah to be carried to Chundernagore, and there to be delivered to the plaintiff, the opposite party. On the 21st August, 1922, seven of the tins were delivered to the plaintiff at Chundernagore, but the Railway Company failed to deliver five of the tins. The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the non-delivery of the said goods. The Railway Company undertook to carry the goods on the terms of a risk note which was signed by the consignor. The risk note was in the form (B) which has been approved by the Governor General in Council pursuant to Section 72(2)(b) of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890). It ran as follows:Risk Note Form B.(To be used when the sender elects to despatc...
The East India Railway Company Vs. Jagpat Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.126
Page, J.1. In this ease some important; and interesting questions are raised in respect of the obligations of a Railway Company towards the owner of goods consigned to it for transportation. On the 24th January 1922, twelve tins of ghee were consigned to the B.I. Railway at Arrah to be carried to Chandernagore, and there to be delivered to the plaintiff, the Opposite Party. On the 21st August 1922, seven of the tins wore delivered to the plaintiff at Chandernagore, but the Railway Company failed to deliver five of the tins. The issue in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the non delivery of the said goods. The Railway Company undertook to carry the goods on the terms of a Risk Note which was signed by the consignor. The Risk Note was in the Form (B) which has been approved by the Governor-General in Council pursuant to Section 72 (2) (b) of the Indian Railways Act (Act IX of 1890). It ran as follows:Risk Note, Form B. (To be used when the sender elec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›