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.
In Re: Jatindra Mohan Sen Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal48
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) for an order directing the Hon. Mr. E.A. Cotton, the President of the Bengal Legislative Council, to decide on the admissibility of a certain motion, being item No. 6 in the list of business to be brought forward at the session of the Bengal Legislative Council, which commences to-day at 3 p. m., and to disallow the said motion and to forbear putting the same at the said session-of the Bengal Legislative Council, and for such further or other orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper; and for an order that the said Mr. Cotton and the other respondents do pay the costs of and incidental to this application. The other respondents are the Hon. Mr. A. K. Fazul Huq and the Hon. Mr. A.A, Ghuznavi, being the Ministers in charge of the departments of Education and Agriculture of the Government of Bengal. The Hon. Mr. Donald, who is a member of the Executive Council of His Excellency the Govern...
Shankar Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. H.E.A. Cotton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal373,85Ind.Cas.14
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff for an order that the first defendant the Honourable Mr. Cotton, who is the President of the Bengal Legislative Council, may be restrained from putting a certain Motion, being Item No. 6 in the Printed List of Business, before the Bengal Legislative Council at its Session which commences to-day at 3 P.M., and for an order restraining the second and third defendants, the Honourable Mr. Fazl-ul Huq and the Honourable Mr. Ghuznavi, who are the Ministers, in charge of the Departments of Education and Agriculture of the Government of Bengal from discharging any duties as Ministers, or receiving any payment of salary and for such other or further order as to this Court may seem lit and proper.2. This application has been brought on immediately after the delivery of my judgment this morning in the matter of the application under Section 45 of the Specific Belief Act on the part of Mr. J. M. Sen Gupta, praying for an order on M...
In Re: J.M. Sen Gupta Vs. H.E.A. Cotton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal874
Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) for an order directing the Hon'ble Mr. H.E.A. Cotton, President of the Bengal Legislative Council, to decide on the admissibility of a certain motion, being item No. 6 in the list of business to be brought forward at the session of the Bengal Legislative Council, which commences to-day at 3 P.M., and to disallow the said motion or to forbear putting the same at the said session of the Bengal Legislative Council, and for such further or other order as to this Court may seem fit and proper, and for an order that the said Mr. Cotton and the other respondents do pay the costs of and incidental to this application. The other respondents are the Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Fazlul Huq and the Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Ghuznavi, being the Ministers in charge of the departments of Education and Agriculture of the Government of Bengal. The Hon'ble Mr. Donald, who is a member of the Executive Council of His Excellency the Gove...
RahimoddIn Mollah and ors. Vs. Nirod Barani Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1036
N.R. Chatterjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes in a suit for recovery of price of half the produce of land against the defendant as a Bargadar.2. The only contention raised is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try a suit for recovery of a share of the produce payable by a Bargadar which is a suit for rent. This question was not raised by the defendant in the Court below and it has not been noticed in the judgment of that Court.3. It is, however, contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that the plaintiff herself in her plaint states that the defendant was entered in the record-of-rights as Bargadar and in possession as Bargadar; that these go to show that the defendant had some sort of a tenancy right and that, unless he had such a right, he would not be recorded in the record-of-rights.4. It appears that the defendant pleaded in his written statement (in more places than one) that he was not a Bargadar, but that ...
Jogendra Narayan Singha and ors. Vs. Mohamed Ismail Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal637
1. These eleven appeals arise out of as many suits under Section 105, B.T. Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent of the grounds of additional area, the present rents being lower than the prevailing rate, and rise in the price of staple food crops.2. The facts are that the appellant along with five others form the entire body of landlords and the suits were purported to have been brought by and on behalf of all these persons. Kiranbala Devi was plaintiff No. 5 and the appellant, Kali Charan Singha, plaintiff No. 6. The suits proceeded to a hearing and a large number of witnesses were examined and a large number of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. While the defendants' case was in progress Kiranbala who was described as plaintiff No. 5 filed an application on the 8th September 1920 to have her name 'struck out' from the category of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suits were not instituted with her knowledge and consent and that she did not want to prosecute the ...
Hem Chandra Roy Choudhury Vs. Benayakdas Acharji Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1037
1. These two appeals arise out of applications by the respondent under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for the settlement of a fair and equitable rent in respect of tenures held by the appellants. These tenures have been noted in the Record-of-Rights as permanent tenures with rent fixed in perpetuity. The object of the applications is to establish that the entry in the Record-of-Rights is incorrect and that the rents of the tenures are actually enhancible. The Assistant Settlement Officer tried the suits and held that on the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs they failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the correctness of the Record-of-Rights and. dismissed the suits. The learned Special Judge, on appeal by the plaintiffs reversed that decision and holding that the rents of the tenures are enhancible remanded the cases to the first Court for determination of other issues.2. The tenant defendants have appealed and it is urged on their behalf that the Special Judge has erred in adm...
Kali Charan Singha Vs. Mahammad Ismail Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal139
Suhrawardy and Duval, JJ.1. These eleven appeals arise out of as many suits under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent on the grounds of additional area, the present rents being lower than the prevailing rate and rise in the price of staple food crops.2. The facts are that the appellant along with five others form the entire body of landlords and the suits were purported to have been brought by and on behalf of all these persons. Kiranbala Devi was plaintiff No. 5 and the appellant Kali Charan Singha plaintiff No. 6. The suits proceeded to a hearing and a large number of witnesses were examined and a large number of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. While the defendants' case was in progress Kiranbala Devi who was described as plaintiff No. 5 filed an application on the 8th September 1920 to have her name 'struck out' from the category of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suits were not instituted with her knowledge and consent and t...
RahimuddIn Mollah and ors. Vs. Nirodbarani Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.685
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This Rule is directed against a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes in a suit for recovery of price of half the produce of land against the defendant as a bargadar.2. The only contention raised is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try a suit for recovery of a share of the produce payable by a bargadar which is a suit for rent. This question was not raised by the defendant in the Court below and it has not been noticed in the judgment of that Court.3. It is, however, contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that the plaintiff herself in her plaint states that the defendant was entered in the Record of Rights as bargadar and in possession as bargadar that these go to show that the defendant had some sort of a tenancy rights and that unless he had such a right he would not be recorded in the Record of Rights.4. It appears that the defendant pleaded in his written statement (in more places than one) that he was not a bargadar, but that he...
Kumar Jogendra NaraIn Singha and ors. Vs. Mohamed Ismail Choudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.1035
1. These eleven appeals arise out of as many suits under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent on the grounds of additional area, the present rents being lower than the prevailing rate and rise in the price of staple food crops.2. The facts are that the appellants along with five others form the entire body of landlords and the suits were purported to have been brought by and on behalf of all these persons. Kiran Bala Devi was plaintiff No. 5 and the appellant Kali Charan Singha, plaintiff No. 6. The suit proceeded to a hearing and a large number of witnesses were examined and a large number of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. While the defendant's case was in progress Kiran Bala Devi who was described as plaintiff No. 5 filed an application on the 8th September 1920 to have her name 'struck out' from the category of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suits were not instituted with her knowledge and consent and that she did not want to...
Hridoy Govinda Sur Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1035
1. This rule must be made absolute on the second of the two grounds on which it was granted, namely, that the trial Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 539-B. It appears that the trying Magistrate inspected the place under the provisions of that section and also that he drew up a diagram and made an inspection note thereon. But he omitted to comply with the provisions of the second clause of this section and the note did not form part of the record of the case. This provision in the section is in our opinion mandatory and the failure to comply with this express direction of law was an illegality and not an irregularity which could be cured if we hold that there was no prejudice to the accused.2. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner and direct that the accused be retried according to law. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »