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.
KalimuddIn Ahammad Vs. Esahakuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal715
Walmsley, J.1. The circumstances which have led up to the present appeal are as follows. A partition suit was instituted on December 20, 1918, against several defendants, among whom the present appellant was No. 4. Two of the defendants contested the suit, and on September 22, 1919, a preliminary decree for partition was made on contest against two of the defendants and ex parte against the others. The present appellant did not appear at all in the first Court, and he is one of those against whom the decree was made ex parte. On December 17, 1919, the first defendant alone preferred an appeal against the decree to this Court, and three days later, on December 20, the appellant presented an application to the trial Court under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application was kept pending until after the disposal of the appeal preferred by the first defendant.2. The fate of that appeal was this. One of the respondents died, and as the appellant did not take proper step...
Mathurapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhasaram Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal703
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are quite simple.2. On the 4th February, 1920, Mr. G. Hennessey and others obtained a decree for rent against the respondents. The appellants, the Mathurapore Zamindary Co., Ld., on the 17th July, 1920, applied for execution of the said decree, after being substituted in the place of the decree-holders on the basis of certain assignments in respect of the decree-holders' properties alleged to have been made in the first instance in September, 1919 and, thereafter in January, 1920. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the said application was made, issued notice on the judgment-debtors to show cause why the substitution should not be made. The judgment-debtors appeared, denied that there was any assignment of the decree in question and challenged the locus standi of the appellants to get themselves substituted or proceed with the execution. The learned Munsif held that the appellants were not transferees of the decree, either by...
Mathurapore Zemindary Company Limited Vs. Bhasaram Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.881
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are quite simple.2. On the 4th February, 1920, Mr. G. Hennessy and others obtained a decree for rent against the respondents. The appellants, the Mathurapur Zemindary Company Limited on the 17th July, 1920 applied for execution of the said decree after being substituted in the place of the decree-holders on the basis of certain assignments in respect of the decree-holders' properties alleged to have been made in the first instance in September, 1919, and thereafter in January 1920. The learned Munsiff in whose Court the said application was made issued notice on the judgment debtors to show cause why the substitution should not be made. The judgment-debtors appeared, denied that there was any assignment of the decree in question and challenged the locus standi of the appellants to get themselves substituted or proceed with the execution. The learned Munsiff held that the appellants were not transferees of the decree eith...
KalimuddIn Ahammad Vs. EsahakuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.220
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The circumstances which have led up to the present appeal are as follows. A partition suit was instituted on December 20, 1918, against several defendants, among whom the present appellant was No. 4. Two of the defendants contested the suit, and on September 22, 1919, a preliminary decree for partition was made on contest against two of the defendants and ex parte against the others. The present appellant did not appear at all in the First Court, and he is one of those again, whom the decree was made ex parte. On December 17, 1919, the first defendant alone preferred an appeal against the decree, to this Court, and three days later, on December 20, the appellant presented an application to the Trial Court under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application was kept pending until after the disposal of the appeal preferred by the first defendant.2. The fate of that appeal was this. One of the respondents died, and as the appellant did not take proper...
The Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Satya Niranjan Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal789
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose. The order of the learned Judge was made on the 8th January 1924, whereby he dismissed an application made by the Karnani Industrial Bank under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act that the suit in question should be stayed.2. The circumstances of this case, as far as my experience goes, are certainly out of the ordinary.3. It appears that the suit in question was brought by Satya Niranjan Shaw and another for arrears of rent, mesne profits, damages and other reliefs against the Bank which was holding certain premises under a lease granted by the Plaintiffs. The summons was served upon the. Defendant Bank and the Bank entered appearance on the 19th of November last year. It then appeared that the Bank had brought a suit against one of the Bank's sub-tenants; and the learned Judge, apparently thinking that it was desirable that these two suits should be disposed of at or about the same...
Abdul Gani and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal494,83Ind.Cas.346
1. The two appellants before us have been convicted by the unanimous verdict of a jury of offences under Sections 147 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and they have, each of them, been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under the provisions of Section 147 and to the same sentence under Section 353, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The principal matters urged before us on behalf of the accused with regard to the charge were as follows: First, it is said that there was misdirection as the law was not explained under Section 353. This point, however, was abandoned, as clearly at page 17 of the copy of the charge, which is before me, the law under Section 353 is explained to the jury. But the point, it appears, was taken under a misapprehension and having regard to the omission of a passage of the charge from the copy of the charge supplied to the learned Counsel for the appellants. The second point urged was that there was misdirection owing to the case of the individual ac...
Jogunnessa Bibi Vs. Satish Chandra Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal633,83Ind.Cas.438
Mookerjee, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present application are these:One Umedali applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in the Court of the 6th Munsif at Commillah for setting aside a sale and, during the pendency of the said proceedings, died on the 18th July, 1920. On the 24th'July, 1920, the death was reported to the Court, and the learned Munsif made a note of it in the order-sheet. Thereafter on five different dates, the proceedings were adjourned on the ground that the heirs had not been made parties and six months had not yet elapsed from the date of death. On the 5th February, 1921, one of the dates to which the case was adjourned, an application for substitution was made on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of Umedali and the same was allowed. It does not appear whether the opposite party were present on that date or not; but on none of the dates to which the case was subsequently adjourned, was any objection taken to the order for s...
Devi Prosad Bhagat Vs. Nagendra Kumar Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal552
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order setting aside a sale under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The circumstances are as follows: The landlord obtained a decree for arrears of rent in respect of a patni against five brothers and the widow of a sixth. The decree was for a sum of rather more than Rs. 12,000 with costs in addition. On June 22nd, 1921, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by the sale of the patni tenure and the Court ordered notices to be issued under Order 21, Rule 66, and fixed the case for July 12th. On that date the decree-holder filed an affidavit to the effect that these notices had been duly served. At the same time, he asked that by way of precaution registered post-cards should be sent to the judgment-debtors, as none of them had entered appearance. The Court ordered this step to be taken and the case was adjourned for a week. On July 19th decree-holder filed an affidavit to the effect that the...
Tularam Bhutunia Vs. Purnendra NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal557
Walmsley, J.1. These two appeals arise from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur in the following circumstances. The decree-holder-respondent obtained a decree and put it into execution. The property against which he proceeded consisted of 24 lots, and the sale began on the 16th February, 1921. On the application of the judgment-debtor, the Court ordered that the sale would be continued until the 18th February, 1921. On the 18th the Judge made this order: 'The bid will be accepted on 30th March, 1921, on return from Jalpaiguri as prayed for by the judgment-debtor in to-day's petition. Decree-holder also consented.' The Judge return-ad from Jalpaiguri on the 30th March and made this order: 'There is no reason for allowing further time to the judgment-debtor, direct that the sale be concluded and the parties concerned be directed to deposit the sums due for price by tomorrow.' On the following day, his order was: 'the bids may be accepted and the sales concluded. ...
Emperor Vs. Gopi Mohan Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal479,(1924)ILR51Cal827,84Ind.Cas.340
Pearson, J.1. The only question is whether the prosecution or the defence has to begin. There have been various English cases cited, some of which incline to one view and some to the other. It appears to me that the most satisfactory method to adopt in this case is that, if the enquiry is to be commenced under Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it should be regarded, not so much, as has been stated in one of the cases, as the issue joined between the parties, but as a preliminary enquiry which is conducted for the satisfaction of the Court, and in that view I think the prosecution ought to commence and give their evidence....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »