Kolkata Court June 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.
In Re: Alliance Bank of Simla in Liquidation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal54
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This Is an application on behalf of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China for an order that the liquidators of the Alliance Bank of Simla, Limited, be directed to pay the Chartered Bank the amount of three debit clearing vouchers referred to in the petition in full and that the costs of the application be paid out of the assets of the Alliance Bank of Simla, Ltd.2. The facts are as follows: The Imperial Bank of India perform in Calcutta the functions of a clearing house to the various banks. The Chartered Bank and the Alliance Bank are members of the said clearing house.3. The practice of the clearing house in April was as follows:-Clearing took place twice daily, once in the morning at 12 and once in the afternoon at 3, except on Saturdays when the hours ware 12 noon and 1 p. m. The various banks sent clerks to the clearing house to whom were handed over all cheques drawn upon their respective banks. Those cheques were then according to the applicant bank, ...
Manomohan Dastidar Vs. Bankim Behari Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal411,(1924)ILR51Cal1044,84Ind.Cas.864
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. This Rule is granted on three grounds, and we hold that it must be made absolute on the fifth ground and a re-trial ordered. It is unnecessary, therefore, to deal with the other two grounds.2. The fifth ground is based on the fact that a certain witness, Jogendra Lal Chowdhury, was examined in Calcutta on commission. The accused, petitioners before us, filed no cross-interrogatories, and he was not then cross-examined. Subsequently he went to Chittagong, where the trial look place, and the accused applied to the Magistrate for him to be summoned for cross-examination. On this petition the Magistrate passed no definite order and he was not summoned. Having regard to the express provisions of Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code we hold that this was a serious illegality on the part of the Magistrate. The accused, even after he has entered upon his defence, is entitled to have the prosecution witnesses summoned for cross-examination, unless the Magistrate ...
Rukmini Kanta Chakrawarti Vs. Baldeo Das Binani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal77
1. The litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, relates to a property, known as 20, Gorachand Road, Alipore, situate within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the Parganas. The facts out of which it has arisen may be briefly stated.2. The property in question belonged to a Hindu lady named Sushila Sundari Chowdhurani, who appears to have been in financial straits in the year 1902 and to have borrowed various sums of money from an attorney named Mohini Mohan Chatterjee. One of the promissory notes for Rs. 4,000 was endorsed by Mohini Mohan in favour of the plaintiff, the present appellant Rukmini Kanta Chakravarti, who brought a suit on it in the Original Side of the High Court and obtained a decree. The decree was transferred to Alipore and the plaintiff executed it, attached the disputed property, and purchased it at auction sale on the 12th August, 1915. The sale was in due course confirmed on the 30th March, 1916, and the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession on t...
Sm. Sarajubala Debi and ors. Vs. Mohini Mohan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal204
Graham, J.1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge, 5th Court at Dacca, refusing to expunge two issues which have been framed in an account suit brought by the petitioners Srimati Sarajubala Debi and others through Mr. F. W. Needham, representing the Court of Wards, against the Opposite Party (defendant No. 1) Mohini Mohan Ghose and others.2. The facts which have given rise to the application, as stated therein, are as follows:The claim made in the suit covered the period from Ashar 1314, when the defendant Mohini Mohan was appointed Naib of Debi Kuromitola of the Bhawal Estate, up to the time when he was suspended in Ashar 1325 B.S. At the date when he was appointed, Kumar Ranendra Narayan Rai, Kumar Romendra Narayan Rai and Kumar Robindra Narayan Rai were the proprietors of the Bhawal Estate in equal shares. On the 15th Jaista 1314 the defendant No. 1 executed a jamminnama or service security bond in favour of the three Kumars stating therein that...
Sripati Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Khudiram Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal442
Chakravarti, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits, the plaintiffs in one suit being the defendants in the other, in respect of the right of shebaitship of a Thakur named Radha Benode Jew. The facts which are necessary for the determination of these appeals are these: Thakur Radha Gohinda Jew was the family deity of one Man Govinda Banerjee who had only a turn in the worship of the said Thakur and his agnate relations were also co-shebaits with him. The Thakur had some debutter lands dedicated by the ancestors of Man Gobinda of about 120 bighas in area. Man Gobinda had no children. By a registered 'Will executed in 1306 he appointed one Tarak Nath Chatterjee and his heirs to act as shebaits of the Thakur after his and his wife's death. Dissatisfied with the conduct of Tarak, Man Govinda, when he was about 70 years old, by an arpannamah executed in 1308, dedicated certain immovable properties in favour of the family Thakur for the better performance of the worship during his tur...
Sripati Chatterjee and ors. Minors, by their Father and Next Friend Ba ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.840
Chakravarti, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits, the plaintiffs in one suit being the defendants in the other, in respect of the right of shebaitship of a Thakur named Radha Benode Jew. The facts which are necessary for the determination of these appeals are these: Thakur Radha Gobinda Jew was the family diety of one Man Govinda Banerjee who had only a turn in the worship of the said Thakur and his agnate relations were also co-shebaits with him. The Thakur had some debutter lands dedicated by the ancestors of Man Gobinda of about 120 bighas in area. Man Gobinda had no children. By a registered Will executed in 1306 he appointed one Tarak Nath Chatterjee and his heirs to act shebaits of the Thakur after his and his wife's death. Dissatisfied with the conduct of Tarak, Man Govinda, when he was about 70 years old, by an arpannamah executed in 1308, dedicated certain immoveable properties in favour of the family Thakur for the better performance of the worship during his turn o...
Srimati Saraju Bala Debi and ors. Vs. Mohini Mohan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.1008
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge, Fifth Court, at Dacca refusing to expunge two issues which have been framed in an account suit brought by the petitioners Srimati Saraju Bala Debi and others through Mr. F.W. Needham, representing the Court of Wards against the opposite party (defendant. No. 1) Mohini Mohan Ghose and others.2. The facts which have given rise to the application as stated therein, are as follows:3. The claim made in the suit covered the period from Ashar 1314, when the defendant Mohini Mohan was appointed Naib, of Dehi Kuromitola of the Bhawal Estate, up to the time when he was suspended in Ashar 1325 B.S. At the date when he was appointed Kumar Ranendra Narayan Rai, Kumar Romendra Narayan Rai, and Kumar Robindra Narayan Rai were the proprietors of the Bhawal Estate in equal shares. On the 15th Jaist 1314 the defendant No. 1 executed a jaminnama or service, security bond in favour of three Kumars stating therein that, as he ha...
Harisadhan Patari Vs. Dinanath Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal316
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for khas possession after declaration of the plaintiff's title to the land in suit. The plaintiff's case is that the land in suit consists of two plots with an intermediate plot which belonged to defendant No. 1, that the land in suit together with other lands originally belonged to one Dwarik Patari which he held under a registered kabuliyat executed by him in the year 1296 B.S. at a, jama of Rs. 38 odd, that Dwarik Patari made a gift of the jama lands to the plaintiff in 1318 and that the plaintiff let out the land in suit to one Sidhan Patari who was dispossessed by defendant No. 1 in 1319. The present suit was brought against defendant No. 1 and one Chehiroo as defendant No. 2 to whom the defendant No. 1 let out the lands in 1319. Chehiroo filed a written statement alleging that be held the land originally under Dwarik and that in 1319 he was induced by defendant No. 1 to execute a kabuliyat in his favour...
Radha Kissen Chamria Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal404
1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 84 of the Calcutta Port Act. The appeal has been argued before us solely on a point of law and we have not been taken through the judgment or told what are the actual facts of the case. It is assumed in the argument that the accused has erected or fixed something in contravention of Section 83 which prohibits the making, erecting or fixing below high wafer mark within the Port of Calcutta any wharf, quay, stage, etc., without the consent of the Local Government. The only point urged on behalf of the appellant is that if this section be read with Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Act, no offence has been committed. This clause provides,-' Nothing herein contained shall deprive any person of any right of property or other private right except as hereinafter expressly provided.' This clause seems really to be unnecessary since no statute can abrogate private rights except by express provision....
In Re: Kumar Guru Prosad Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal768
Page, J.1. This case is of great importance to those who are concerned in propounding the will. It is also of: interest to the medical community, because it illustrates the pitfalls which lie in the path of professional men who through carelessness or complaisance stray from the straight way marked out for their progress by the traditions of a great profession. The will in suit is propounded by one Lila the sole executrix and the residuary legatee. The contesting caveator is the Ram Kishna Mission; the Kumar's daughter, Princess Lukshmi, claiming only that the will be proved in solemn form. About 3 or 4 p. m. on the 21st November, 1920, the testator, commonly known as the Raja of Khaira, is alleged to have made the will, the validity of which is challenged in these proceedings. About 1 a.m. on the 22nd November, 1920, Kumar Guru Prosad Sinha was seized with an attack of delirium tremens of so violent a nature that he threatened to kill Lila with whom he had been living and to whom, a f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »