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.
Ramesh Chandra Basu Vs. Jadab Chandra Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal829
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Page.2. The defendant had acted as attorney for the plaintiffs in a suit in the High Court in which the present plaintiffs were defendants. The present plaintiffs succeeded in the suit and in the appeal which was filed by the plaintiffs in that suit.3. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover two sums of Rs. 245-10-3 and Rs. 3,837-1. The first of these sums was alleged to be the balance due to the plaintiffs from the defendants, in respect of payments made by the plaintiffs to the defendant on account of costs after deducting the amount allowed on taxation.4. The second amount was part of a sum of Rs. 4,237-1, the taxed costs of the previous suit as between party and party, which was paid by the plaintiffs in the previous suit to the defendant under an order of the Court as a condition for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.5. In respect of this am...
Ramesh Chandra Basu Vs. Jadab Chandra Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.817
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Page.2. The defendant had acted as attorney for the plaintiffs in a suit in the High Court in which the present plaintiffs were defendants. The present plaintiffs succeeded in the suit and in the appeal which was fifed by the plaintiffs in that suit.3. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover two sums of Rs. 245-10-3 and Rs. 3,837-1-0. The first of these sums was alleged to be the balance due to the plaintiffs from the defendant, in respect of payments made by the plaintiffs to the defendant on account of costs after deducting the amount allowed on taxation.4. The second amount was part of a sum of Rs. 4,237-1-0, the taxed costs of the previous suit as between party and party, which was paid by the plaintiffs in the previous suit to the defendant under an order of the Court as a condition for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.5. In respec...
Brojalal Banerjee Vs. Sreejukta Sharajubala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.154
1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of Dacca rejecting an application for Probate, under somewhat novel circumstances. One Kumar Ronendra Narayan Roy died on the 14th September 1910 leaving him surviving a widow who is the respondent before us. He is alleged to have executed a Will in the year 1904. Two gentlemen Mr. Peary Lal Roy and the present appellant were appointed executors under the said Will. They made an application for Probate before the District Judge of Dacca on the 4th November 1910. The widow disputed the Will and she had applied on the Original Side of this Court for grant of Letters of Administration of her husband's estate apparently on the allegation that he had died intestate. This dispute between the parties went on for a considerable time: On the 20th September 1912 Mr. Peary Lal Roy and the appellant before us filed an application before the Judge signed by them dated the 10th September 1912. In that application it was recited that the pe...
Saroda Sundari Bosu and ors. Vs. Akramanessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal783
1. This rule was obtained on grounds Nos. 4 and 6 of the petition which are as follows:4. For that on a valid and correct construction of law on the subject the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif.6. For that the learned Munsif having heard also the evidence and arrived at his own findings thereon, the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in not expressing his definite conclusions thereupon.2. The suit was one for redemption and the Munsif before whom it was instituted proceeded by way of a preliminary issue to decide the question whether he had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try it. Evidence was led on both sides and upon it he came to the conclusion that the debt due by Plaintiff to Defendant was over Rs. 1,000 and that consequently the suit was beyond his jurisdiction. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Plaintiffs appealed and t...
Horo Mohan Pramanick Vs. Mohan Das Pali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal849,83Ind.Cas.360
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by a creditor. In February 1915, the respondent Mohun Das filed a petition in the District Judge's Court under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In his petition, he mentioned three decrees and a fourth debt - the total sum coming to over Rs. 800. The appellant filed a petition alleging that Mohun Das had considerable property available for meeting these debts. The Judge examined the petitioner and adjudicated him an insolvent, and at the same time recorded a note to the effect that the creditor had appeared and made this representation. No receiver was appointed and no other order was passed. In June 1922, the appellant creditor put in a petition asking the Judge to direct the Najir to take charge of the properties then in the possession of Mohun Das. The Judge refused to do so on the ground that the order of adjudication had been passed seven years previously. Then the creditor asked that some other competent person might be direc...
Niranka Chandra Vs. Atul Krishna Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal67,83Ind.Cas.110
1. This appeal arises out of the suit for setting aside the sale of a putni tenure held under Reg. VIII of 1819, and for declaration of title to and possession of 8-annas share of the putni tenure. There were alternative prayers, namely, that if the sale be not set aside the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to convey an 8-annas share of the putni to the plaintiff, and if that sale (and an earlier sale of the putni) be set aside the plaintiff prayed that his title to 1/3rd share in the putni might be declared.2. It appears that the putni tenure (Mahal Dabibarpur) was held under the Maharaja of Burdwan who is the defendant No. 1 in this case. The plaintiff as well as the defendants Nos. 6 to 27 were the putnidars. The plaintiffs' share originally was one-third in the tenure by right of inheritance, and the remaining 2/3rds belonged to the defendants Nos. 6 to 27. The putni fell into arrears and was sold under Reg. VIII of 1819 on the 15th May, 1916, and was purchased in the name of de...
Madan Mohan and anr. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal481
1. This is an appeal under the Calcutta Improvement Appeals Act, 1911 against the decision of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal awarding compensation far land that has been acquired in connexion with the operation of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The President of the Tribunal held that the amount of compensation to be awarded in respect; of the market-value of the land should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 6,500 per cottah. The two assessors held that the market-value should be taken as Rs. 7,000 per cottah and the award was made in accordance with the opinion of the majority.2. The claimant has appealed and the point of law pressed before us is that certain evidence was wrongly excluded. The learned President whose decision on points of law at the trial is binding on the assessors, refused to allow the claimant to adduce evidence about the amount of compensation awarded to him in respect of the set back and the compensation awarded in respect of the acquisition of premises Nos. 16...
Kalia and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal959
1. The five appellants before us were tried before a jury of five persons and they were convicted of offences under the provisions of Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Two jurors were in favour of their acquittal and three jurors were in favour of their conviction and the learned Officiating Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the verdict of the majority of the jury and sentenced the first three appellants to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 and the other two appellants to seven years under Section 397. Now the charge has been attacked in seven particulars. First of all, it is said that the learned Judge was wrong in referring the Jury, to Ex. 3 and admitting it in evidence because it is urged before us that it is 'inadmissible In evidence under the provisions of Section 172 of the Cr. P.C., and it is said that it could only be used for the purpose of contradicting the Police Officer who wrote the diary and for no other purpose what soever, The second ...
Ananda Chandra Prodhan and ors. Vs. Suk Chand Prodhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1118,85Ind.Cas.619
ORDER1. We are invited in this Rule to revise an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas directing the examination of the plaintiffs' witness, Brojo Mohan Tewari, on commission at Geonkhali in the District of Midnapur. It appears that this order was issued in connexion with a suit between two brothers, the plaintiff and the defendant, in respect of the ancestral property. The plaintiff filed an application before the Court below to examine this witness who lives in the village of Nanduiram, which is said to be situated at a distance of 20 miles from Geonkhali, the mode of conveyance between the place being over land and water. The application was granted; but on the defendants' objecting to the order the Court fixed Diamond Harbour as the place where the witness should be brought for examination. On further representation being made the Court appointed Geonkhali as the place whore the witness should be brought for examination. The plaintiff objected to this order on the gr...
Sarada Sundari Basu Vs. Akramannessa Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal737
Suhrawardy and Chotzner, JJ.1. This rule was obtained on grounds Nos. 4 and 6 of the petition which are as follows:4. For that on a valid and correct construction of law on the subject the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif.6. For that the learned Munsif having heard all the evidence and arrived at his own findings thereon, the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in not expressing his definite conclusions thereupon.2. The suit was one for redemption and the Munsif before whom it was instituted proceeded by way of a preliminary issue to decide the question whether he had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try it. Evidence was led on both sides and upon it he came to the conclusion that the debt due by plaintiff to defendant was over Rs. 1,000 and that consequently the suit was beyond his jurisdiction. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »