Kolkata Court May 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.
Bijoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Nilmoni Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1216,85Ind.Cas.1007
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal involves an important question of limitation, though, in my judgment, not one of great difficulty. The appellant Maharaja had brought a patni held by Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 to sale under Regulation VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent for the first six months of 1321 (B.S.). The putni was sold on the 17th November 1914, and purchased by Defendant No. 5. It was again put up to sale on the 16th November 1916 and purchased by Defendant No. 6. There was a subsequent sale under the regulation and the patni was again sold on the 16th November 1918 and purchased by Defendant No. 7. In the meantime the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit for setting aside the sale of the patni on the 17th November 1914. The sale was set aside by the Subordinate Judge on the 23rd December 1915. Against that decree the Maharaja preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge on the 5th December 1918. Though' the sale was set aside, the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were not put ...
Nayan Munjari Dassi Vs. the Chairman of the Commissioners of the Howra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal676
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff in respect of two proceedings of the Howrah Municipality regarding bustees one known as Seal's bustee and the other as Kunder Bagan bustee. It appears that in view of the insanitary condition of these bustees the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality determined to take action under Section 245 of the Bengal Municipal Act. They then had the bustees inspected by the Deputy Sanitary Commissioner of Burdwan and their Health Officer, both qualified Medical Officers, who made reports in respect of these two bustees pointing out their insanitary conditions and giving a list of the roads required to be constructed and houses, trees and privies which it would be necessary to remove for that purpose. The Municipality accepted these reports and issued notices on the owners. The present appellant thereupon brought two civil suits before the Subordinate Judge of Howrah and called in question the right of the Municipality to iss...
Administrator-general of Bengal and anr. Vs. Balkissen Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal140,84Ind.Cas.91
Page, J.1. In this case the defendants, in my opinion, possess no merits, and deserve no sympathy. They possess no merits, because on the date when the suit was instituted none of them were clothed with a vestige of legal title to the premises in suit, which were originally known as 51-3, Cotton Street, afterwards as No. 55, Cotton Street, and now as No. 10, Hanumanji Lane, Calcutta. And they are entitled to no sympathy because, if they had not admitted at the hearing that on the date when these proceedings were commenced they possessed no title to the premises, and the circumstances Under which the property in the premises purported to have passed from the first and second defendants to one Ashutosh Pramanick, and subsequently to the fourth defendant, had been subjected to scrutiny in Court, I have more than a shrewd suspicion that it would have become apparent that the defendants at all material times wore fully aware that none of them possessed any title or interest whatever in thes...
Bhabataran Chattopadhya and ors. Vs. Durgeshnandini Debi, Wife of Rakh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal164
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, modifying a decision of the First Munsif of Katwa. The facts are as follows.2. The original plaintiff and the defendant on the 10th of September 1918 applied to purchase certain property at an execution sale. Their application provided that six annas of the purchase price was to be paid by the original plaintiff and that in proportion the property was to belong to him and that the balance of the purchase-money should be paid by the defendant and that a share of the property, namely 10 annas should belong to her. A deposit of twenty-five per cent of the price was made, this was paid by the original plaintiff and by the defendant in the proportion which 1 have already mentioned. When the time, within which the balance of the purchase money was to be paid came the original plaintiff was unable or unwilling to pay his six annas share of the balance of the purchase consideration and acc...
Emperor Vs. Harendra Chandra Chakravarthy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal384,84Ind.Cas.929
Mukerji, J.1. In the present trial, before the first juror was called, Mr. H. M. Bose, appearing on behalf of the prisoner, claimed that a majority of the jury should be Indians on the ground that the prisoner is an Indian British subject, and based his claim upon the mandatory provisions of Section 275 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure. Mr. A. K. Basu, appearing on behalf of the Crown, opposed the application on the ground that the claim was not entertainable in view of the fact that it was not put forward before the committing Magistrate. A similar application made on behalf of the prisoner, at the commencement of the trial which has just now proved abortive, was refused by me; but, as on that occasion I did not give my reasons for the order that I then passed, I have allowed the prisoner to raise the point again, and have considered the matter further; but I do not find any reason to alter the opinion which I then formed.2. At the outset I may say at once that I quite agree with the...
Bijoy Kumar Pal and ors. Vs. Nagendra Nath Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal478,83Ind.Cas.876
1. The plaintiffs brought separate rent-suits for recovery of arrears and enhancement of rent. The present Appeal No. 379 relates only to Rent Suit No. 5 which formed the subject matter of First Appeal No. 1317. The Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganahs has reversed the order of the Munsif of Barasat and the defendants are now the appellants before us. It appears that proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act were previously instituted by the landlord against the present tenants which proceedings were never brought to a final decision but liberty was given to the landlord by the Settlement officer to withdraw the proceedings before him. The question then arises as to whether the present suit is maintainable having regard to the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which lays down that a Civil Court shall not entertain any application or suit concerning any matter which is or has already been the subject of an application made, suit instituted or proceedings tak...
Bhabataran Chatterjee Vs. Durgesh Nandini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal992
Greaves and Chakravarti, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Burdwan modifying a decision of the first Munsif of Katwa. The facts are as follows: The original plaintiff and the defendant, on the 10th of September 1918, applied to purchase certain property at an execution sale. Their application provided that 6 annas of the purchase price was to be paid by the original plaintiff and that in proportion the property was to belong to him, and that the balance of the purchase money should be paid by the defendant and that a share of the property, namely, 10 annas should belong to her. A deposit of 25 per cent of the price was made, this was paid by the original plaintiff and by the defendant in the proportions which I have already mentioned. When the time, within which the balance of the purchase money was to be paid, came, the original plaintiff was unable or unwilling to pay his 6 annas share of the balance of the purchase co...
Emperor Vs. Harendra Chandra Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal980
Mukerji, J.1. In the present trial, before the first juror was called, Mr. H.M. Bose, appearing on behalf of the prisoner, claimed that a majority of the jury should be Indians on the ground that the prisoner is an Indian British subject, and based his claim upon the mandatory provisions of Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. A.K. Basu, appearing on behalf of the Crown, opposed the application on the ground that the claim was not entertainable in view of the fact that it was not put forward before the committing Magistrate. A similar application made on behalf of the prisoner, at the commencement of the trial which has just now proved abortive, was refused by me; but, as on that occasion I did not give my reasons for the order that I then passed, I have allowed the prisoner to raise the point again, and have considered the matter further; but I do not find any reason to alter the opinion which I then formed.2. At the outset I may say at once that I quite agree with the c...
Jnanendra Nath Mustaphi Vs. Dukhiram Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal850,82Ind.Cas.386
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of a raiyati holding and for a declaration that the Plaintiff's right thereto was not affected by the decree in Rent Suit No. 418 of 1915, or the sale thereof under that decree. The Appellant purchased the raiyati in execution of the said rent decree for the sum of Rs. 540.2. The Plaintiff rested his claim to the land on a two-fold basis. He claimed it as the nishkar land of one Tincowrie Mukerji which he had purchased at a road-cess execution sale, and also alternatively by virtue of private purchase from, one Tushtu Das, who held a korpa tenancy of the disputed lands under the Defendants Mustaphis. The trial Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to establish either claim, and dismissed the suit with costs to the contesting Defendant. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Hughly confirmed the finding of the Munsif so far as it related to the lakheraj title, but allowed the appeal so far as...
In Re: Harsukhdas Balkissendas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal964
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application for an order that the firm of Chowdhury & Co., may be adjudicated as insolvents.2. The facts which have been opened before me by learned Counsel who appeared in support of the application are as follows : On the 21st August, 1923, a decree was obtained in suit No. 2239 of 1923 by Messrs. Hursukdas Balkissendas who are the petitioning creditors for a sum of Rs. 10,000, being the amount due on a hundi executed on the 4th May, 1923 by Messrs. Chowdhury & Co. In execution of the said decree; the decree-holders applied for leave to attach certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtors and then in the hands of Mr. R.N. Mitter, Barristerat-Law, who had been appointed Receiver in another suit of the assets belonging to Messrs. Chowdhury & Co. On or about the 29tb November, 1923, the Receiver was served with a notice requiring him not to part with certain articles of furniture which had been attached by the decree-holders in execution of the said de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »