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.
Ram Kumar Lal and ors. Vs. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and Chin ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal664,87Ind.Cas.375
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Coomar Lal and others against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose which was delivered on the 10th of April, 1924. By that judgment the learned Judge appointed a receiver to take charge of certain immovable properties which were referred to in the petition presented by the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China.2. It is not necessary, in my opinion, to deal in great detail with the facts of this case but the following are the facts which it is necessary to mention.3. A joint Mitakshara family owned certain mica properties which I understand, are in the neighbourhood of Hazarribagh and the business was carried on in the name of Johormull Sundermull and also in the name of J.S. Mull & Co. There was a firm of Y. Artin & Co. the members of which were Sunder Mull, Sree Nath Pal, & Simpson. They were acting as selling agents in respect of the joint family business.4. In May 1919 a Limited Company was formed, the Memorandum...
indubala Debi Vs. Manmatha Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal724,87Ind.Cas.404
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Sm. Indubala Debi, the wife of Mohendra Nath Roy, one of the defendants in the suit against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves dated the 20th of March, 1923. The suit was brought by Manmatha Nath Roy.2. The plaintiff and Mohendra are sons of G.B. Roy and Girijamoni Debi. The pedigree of the family of G.B. Roy is set out in the plaint. Kuntala Debi, the defendant No. 6, is the daughter of Bimalabala. The 2nd defendant Mohendra is an insolvent, and the Official Assignee was joined as a defendant.3. In the suit the plaintiff claimed that the shares and rights of the parties in the estate of the testator and in particular in the properties set out in Exhibit B annexed to the plaint be ascertained and declared.4. A further prayer was for a declaration that the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have no interest or right in the estate of the testator and in particular in the properties set out in Exhibit B annexed to the plaint.5. There were...
Hriday Govinda Sur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal148
Newbould and Mukerji, JJ.1. This Bale 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 539B. 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. Bat 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 held that there was 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 re-tried according to law. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Hriday Govinda Sur Alias Hridgovinda Sur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.767
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 539B. 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 re-tried according to law. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Chandra Kumar De Vs. Kusum Kumari Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal57,84Ind.Cas.724
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the pleader Commissioner against an order of the Court below dismissing his application for execution for the realisation of the money awarded to him by Court as remuneration for the work done in connection with a partition suit in, which the respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff had brought in a partition suit against several defendants. The appellant was appointed commissioner to measure the lands, and to prepare map and khatiana, and to effect a partition. Some money was deposited as his remuneration; but he did more work and he claimed more remuneration. After the appellant had done most of the work, on the 20th January, 1922, neither party appeared before the Court and the suit was dismissed for default of both parties. On the next day the appellant applied to the Court for obtaining his remuneration which he estimated at Rs. 967. The sherishtadar was asked to report, and on the 25th January, 1922, the Court passed the following order.Be...
Rajani Kanta Bag Vs. Raja Bala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal320,85Ind.Cas.870
Chakravarti, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiffs calling on the defendants to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 5th of January, 1924, affirmed in appeal by the District Judge on the 3rd March, 1924, should not be set aside or any other order should not be passed by this Court as to this Court may seem fit. The facts out of which this application arises are these. The plaintiff in the plaint filed by him alleged that he was entitled to a 4 annas share of the family properties along with some of the defendants. The plaintiff farther alleged that he was in possession but that a cloud had been thrown upon his title on account of a certain suit previously instituted and also on account of an erroneous record in the record-of-rights. The plaintiff on establishment of his title prayed for partition of the family properties which he valued at Rs. 2,500. The plaintiff paid a Court-fee of Rs. 20 for partition and also paid ad valorem Court-fee upon t...
Rajani Kanta Bag Vs. Rajabala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal128
Chakravarti, J.1. Do you suggest that a suit for partition on establishment of title is not maintainable?2. No. But I say that this is not a simple suit for partition. This is really a suit for declaration of title with consequential relief, viz., setting aside the previous decree for partition, cancelling the entries in the record of rights, etc. See Hara Gouri v. Dukhi (1910) 5 Ind. Cas. 582. Such a suit is one under Section 7, Sub-section (iv), Clause (c) of the Court Fees Act, and the jurisdiction is fixed by the amount at which the plaintiff values his claim for payment of court fees under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Further the question involved is one of error of law, rather than of jurisdiction and your Lordships cannot interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Mathura Nath Sarkar v. Umesh Chandra Sarkar (1897) 1 U. W. N. 626. Then again there being no question of prejudice to the petitioner your Lordships ought not to interfere in the exercise o...
Chandra Kumar De Vs. Kusum Kumari Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal269
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the pleader commissioner against an order of the Court below dismissing his application for execution for the realization of the money awarded to him by Court as remuneration for the work done in connection with a partition suit in which the respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff had brought a partition suit against several defendants. The appellant was appointed commissioner to measure the lands, to prepare maps and khatians and to effect a partition. Some money was deposited as his remuneration; but he did more work and he claimed more remuneration. After the appellant had done most of the work, on the 20th January 1922 neither party appeared before the Court and the suit was dismissed for default of both parties. On the next day the appellant applied to the Court for obtaining his remuneration which he estimated at Rs. 967. The sheristadar was asked to report and on the 25th January 1922 the Court passed the following order: 'Read sheristad...
Krishnadas Acharjee Choudhury and ors. Vs. Rahimannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.996
1. This Rule was obtained calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the appeal should not be registered though filed out of time, The decree in this case was prepared and signed on the 22nd March 1922. The application for review was presented to the lower Appellate Court on the 16th June 1922. That application was dismissed on the 11th September 1923. The present appeal was filed on the 12th. November 1923. On the 21st. November the Stamp Reporter reported that the appeal was out of time and on live 22nd November directed the matter to be laid before the Registrar. On the 7th December 1923 the Registrar allowed two weeks' time to the appellant to make the necessary application before the Division Court. On the 2nd January 1924 the present application was filed on which this Rule was issued. The petitioner wants us to deduct the time employed in presenting and prosecuting the review application before the lower Appellate Court from the time allowed for presenting an appeal to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›