Kolkata Court July 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.
Hara Mohan Saha Vs. Sudhanshu Bhusan Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal83,85Ind.Cas.1002
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff in the Court below and the questions involved in this are of a somewhat peculiar nature. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants in the Court of Small Causes at Dacca, claiming Rs. 120 as damages against the defendants for use and occupation of a certain piece of land which the plaintiff claimed to be his properly. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and claimed title to half of the property in himself. The learned Small Cause Court Judge was of opinion that the relief claimed by the plaintiff depended upon questions of title to immoveable property which the Small Cause Court Judge could not finally determine and he, therefore, made an order for the return of the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction, to determine title. The order of the Small Cause Court Judge runs as follows: 'It is accordingly ordered that the plaint be returned to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine th...
Golam Nabi Chapawala Vs. F.W. Needham and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1243,85Ind.Cas.1004
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This a case in which the petitioner applies, under Section 115, Civil P.C., for the revision of an order passed by the Munsif, Fourth Court at Dacca. The case raises a question of some nicety. An order has been made against the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 98, Civil P.C. under which the learned Munsif has directed that the decree-holders be put into khas possession of the decretal land including the land -which the petitioner before this Court occupies as his bari and that his possession be removed, if he refuses to vacate the same. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that Rule 98 of Order 21 does not apply to his case, firstly because in fact he was not the judgment-debtor in the case; and secondly, that it has not been found that he has been resisting the delivery of possession to the decree-holder at the instigation of the judgment debtor. The second question that has been raised is that the decree which was one for possession of a certain piece of land...
Harendra Nath Das Vs. Jotish Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal100,85Ind.Cas.641
Mukerji, J.1. The charge framed in this case runs in these words;That you on or about the 19th September 1923 in Calcutta deceived Mr. B.J. Pithia of Birla Jute . by inducing him to accept a Bought Note signed by your firm as brokers on behalf of Santoke Chand Manik Chand who, you represented, were respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Noormull Lohia Lane, Calcutta knowing that such representation was false, and further by inducing the said Mr. B.J. Pithia by means of such representations to give a receipt for the said Bought Note, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.2. The charge, on a proper analysis, avers that the accused deceived Mr. B.J. Pithia by making a false representation that he or rather his firm was acting as brokers on behalf of Santoke Chand Manik Chand, who, according to the accused, were a respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Noormull Lohia Lane, Calcutta, that by the said ...
Promotha Nath Mitter Vs. Manmatha Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.610
Chakravarti, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner which runs as follows: Let the record be sent for and a Rule issue on the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the Second Additional District Judge of Howrah, dated the 29th May 1924 refusing to appoint a common manager should not be set aside and why an order should not be passed for the appointment of a common manager, Pending the hearing of the Rule the order directing the Receiver to give possession of the estate to the owners will be stayed.2. Cause is shown by the opposite parties, and it is contended that the order of the District Judge is right and that this Court should not interfere with the order which was purely a discretionary one. The facts are as follows: The Andul Raj is the owner amongst other properties of touji popularly known as Bara Taraf of the Collectorate of Howrah. This is a separate account of the 8 annas of the main touji and the other separate account consists of the other 8 annas of the t...
Harendra Nath Das Vs. Jyotish Chandra Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal188
1. The charge framed in this case runs in these words, 'That you, on or about the 19th September 1923, in Calcutta, deceived Mr. E. J. Pithie of Birla Jute Manufacturing Company Ld., by inducing him to accept a bought note signed by your firm as brokers on behalf of Santok Chand Manik Chand, who you represented, were a respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Nur Mull Lohia Lane, Calcutta, knowing that such representation was false: and farther by inducing the said Mr. E. J, Pithie, by means of such representation, to give a receipt for the said bought note; and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420. I. P. C.'2. The charge, on a proper analysis, avers that the accused deceived Mr. E.J. Pithie by making a false ' representation that he, or rather his firm, was acting as brokers on behalf of Santok Chand Manik Chand, who, according to the accused, were a respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Nur Mull Lohia Lane, Calcutta,...
Promatha Nath Mitra Vs. Manmatha Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal686,(1925)ILR52Cal231
Chakravarti, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner, which runs as follows: Let the record be sent for and a Rule issue on the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the 2nd Additional District Judge of Howrah, dated the 29th May 1924, refusing to appoint a common manager should not be set aside and why an order should not be passed for the appointment of a common manager. Pending the hearing of the Rule the order directing the Receiver to give possession of the estate to the owners will be stayed.2. Cause is shown by the opposite parties and it is contended that the order of the District Judge was right and that this Court should not interfere with the order which was purely a discretionary one. The facts are as follows: The Andul Raj is the owner amongst other properties of a Touzi, popularly known as Bara Taraf, of the Collectorate of Howrah. This is a separate account of the 8 annas of the main Touzi, and the other separate account consists of the other 8 annas of t...
Emperor Vs. KomoruddIn Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1928Cal233
Walmsley, J.1. This is a reference made under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P.C., by the Sessions Judge of Rajshahi. Four persons, Komoruddin Sheikh, Kadar Mandal, Majidullah Biswas and Jahir Mandal were placed on their trial upon a charge framed under Section 395, I.P.C. The story: briefly was as follows : These men and others attacked the house belonging to one Iswar Chunder Ghose on the night of 28th July last year. Iswar Ghose fired a gun injuring one of the men who died in his Court yard. The other men got away. It is said that the injured man was one Mohamed and that he named several of his accomplices. One Enaz was subsequently arrested and, immediately after his arrest, he made a confession and, upon his plea of 'guilty,' he was convicted by the learned Judge. He afterwards gave evidence in this case. The present accused were arrested before Enaz, and the enquiry before commitment was taken up by one Magistrate and finished by another. Then apparently Iswar Chunder Gh...
King-emperor Vs. Abinash Chandra Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1029,84Ind.Cas.654
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpur, under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The case involved a charge of murder, and a conspiracy to murder, against three persons Abinash Bose, Abinash Sarkar and Kali Charan Barai. They were charged with having murdered one Abdul Aziz Khan.3. There is no doubt that a brutal murder was committed and that the decapitated body of Abdul Aziz was found on a piece of land, overgrown more or less with jungle, called Boybagan, near the village Jhowkhola, andl that his head was found in another part of Roybagan.4. The case for the prosecution, shortly stated, was that Abdul Aziz and two of his relations who were Kabulis lived together carrying on a joint business in cloth. Abdul Aziz was an illiterate man: and one Nirode used to act as a sort of clerk for him writing out his khatas, making out his accounts, and he used to go with Aziz to collect the amounts due to him. After the collections had been made...
Motahar HossaIn Vs. Mohammad Yakub
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal201,84Ind.Cas.700
1. This Rule was obtained at the instance of the judgment-debtor to set aside a sale which was held on the 7th of July on the ground that no date and time were fixed for the sale and that no time was notified for the sale in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 69.2. The facts are as follows:-The 1st of July, 1922 was the data fixed for the sale of the property taken in execution. The 1st of July happened to be a holiday and the sale accordingly could not take place. A title suit had been commenced by the sisters of the judgment-debtor claiming the property, and on the 4th of July, 1922 an order was made that the execution case should be put up on July 7 along with an application for an injunction to restrain the sale which was being made in the title suit. The judgment-debtor apparently thought that no sale would take place on the 7th, but that only the application for an injunction to restrain the sale would be dealt with. But it appears that on the 7th July, 1922, the in...
Abdul Karim Chowdhury Vs. Prosanna Kumar Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1116,85Ind.Cas.770
Newbould, J.1. The only point press-ed in this; appeal as before the lower appellate Court relates to the amounts of yearly rent, which the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to realize. The plaintiff claimed rent all the rate of Rs. 2-10-6 in addition to cesses and obtained a decree based on this rate in the first Court. On appeal the annual amount of rent payable was held to be Rs. 2-4-6, the learned Subordinate Judge having disallowed two items: for vet, cocoanut, 1 anna 6 pies, and for begar 4 annas 6 pies, as irreoverable abwabs.2. Before dealing with this question it is necessary to refer to a preliminary point, which arose in connexion with the hearing of the appeal. The decision of this appeal depends on the construction of the lease, Ex. 1, by which, the tenancy was created. Under the rules of this Court contained in Note 1 of Rule 50 of Ch. IX of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court, it was the duty of the vakil for the appellant before the hearing of the appeal to serve on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »