Kolkata Court August 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.
Nibaran Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. NabIn Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal297,85Ind.Cas.127
Chakravarthi, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought' by the four plaintiffs, the owners of an one-sixth share of a taluq. The other co-sharers were also joined as defendants and the plaintiffs prayed for a decree for the entire rent in the presence of the other co-sharers. The defence of the defendants was that the suit so far as the entire rent was claimed was not maintainable because the plaintiffs co-sharers, the pro forma defendants in the suit, were not registered in the landlord's sherista and that so far as they are concerned Sections 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act would be a bar to their claim, The next contention of the defendants was that the rents for the years 1323 and 1324 were barred because some of the co-sharer defendants were brought on the record at a time when the claim for rent for those two years would be barred. The Munsiff gave effect to his contention and dismissed the suit. Before the learned Subordinate Judge the plaint...
KamruddIn Hyder Vs. M.N. Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal735
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to file a memorandum of appeal which was rejected by this office on the 6th of August this year.2. It appears that the judgment against which it is desired to appeal was delivered on the 13th of May, 1924, and on the 16th the appellant, who was one of the defendants, sent a requisition to the office of this Court for a copy of the order. He took no further steps until towards the end of June. It appears that on the 13th of June a requisition by the respondent was made for the drawing up of the order; that order was settled on the 25th of June, 1924, and according to the learned Counsel a statement, it appears that the appellant was present at the settlement of the order on the 25th of June. On the 4th of July, the order was signed by the learned Judge, and it was filed on the 5th of July. On the 26th of July the stamps which were required for obtaining the office copy were put in by the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant did n...
Barada Kanta Saha Vs. Shaikh Maijuddi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1
Sanderson, C.J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are as follows:(1) Whether a Provincial Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to order an attachment of immovable property before judgment.(2) Whether the case of Kedar Nath v. Hem Nath A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 176 or the case of Sadek Ali v. Samed Ali A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 198 was correctly decided?2. The reference arises by reason of conflicting decisions of this Court in two cases, viz., Kedar Nath Pramanik v. Hem Nath Karmokar A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 176 and Sadek Ali v Samed Ali A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 198.3. In the former case it was decided that a Provincial Small Cause Court can attach before judgment immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. In the latter case it was decided that a Provincial Court of Small Causes has no power to attach immovable property before judgment under Order 38 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 and that an order of such a Court adjudicating a claim to property so attached is ultra vires.4. The decision...
D. Tancred and ors. Vs. D.N. Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal391,84Ind.Cas.543
1. This is a reference under Order 46, Code of Civil Procedure, by the Rent Controller of Calcutta on an application by the tenant for standardisation of rent in respect of a suite of rooms in premises No. 109-E, Ripon Street. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the landlord to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the Reference on the ground that the Rent Controller is not competent to make it under Order 46, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.2. Two fundamental conditions are necessary under the above rule to entitle a Court to make a Reference under that order. The Court making the Reference must be a Court of Civil jurisdiction and that Reference must be made in a suit, appeal or execution proceeding. The Court of the Rent Controller is in certain respects a Court of Civil jurisdiction: H. D. Chatterjee v. L.B. Tribedi A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 427; Allen Brothers & Co. v. Bando & Co. A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 169. The only question that remains therefore for dissuasion in whether the ...
Jatindra Nath Mohan Banerjee Vs. Gouri Bala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal794
Chotzner, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and upon the Opposite Party to show cause why the order specified in the petition should not be set aside. It is said that the Petitioner and the Opposite Party are husband and wife and that they have not been living together for nearly twenty years, and, it is admitted that during that period the Petitioner has been paying her a monthly sum of Rs. 10 under an order under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Petitioner's case is that the Opposite Party had been living in her father's house up till sometime in December 1923, when she gave birth to an illegitimate child and was driven away by her brother who was living with her and her mother in that house. Petitioner thereupon applied to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the cancellation of the maintenance order. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the application. The Magistrate observed that though the child was illegitimate 't...
Emperor Vs. Asimulla Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1068,85Ind.Cas.939
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Rungpur, dealing with the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Rangpur, Sadar.2. It appears that complaint, was brought by one Dunda against one Asimulla and others, alleging that they had committed offences under Section 143 and Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code; and the Magistrate convicted them of these offences and imposed certain fines upon the accused persons. Upon an application to the learned Judge he made the reference to this Court with which we are now dealing, and, it is, of course, common knowledge that a reference can only be made in respect of an error on a point of law.3. The learned Judge has set out in the reference the respects in which he considers the Magistrate made a mistake in point of law.4. The third paragraph of the reference deals with the particular portions of the order which the Court making the reference considers to be an error in point of law, and the first clause (a) is as ...
Barada Kanta Saha Roy Vs. Sheikh Maijuddi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal275
Sanderson, C.J.1. You need not deal with that point.2. Then the case of Kanchedi v. Kanchedi (1917) 43 Ind. Cas. 123., which was decided by the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces is also in my favour.3. Babu Sitaram Banarji, against the reference. The Code of 1908 sufficiently indicates that Small Cause Courts have no such powers as is contended by my friend, though there may be no express exclusion.4. The Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act expressly excludes from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts all suits in respect of immovable property, be it for declaration, partition or otherwise. Rights to and interests in immovable property are expressly exempted from the cognizance of Small Cause Courts. The word 'interest' is wide enough to support my contention. We have to start from this basis in considering this question.5. Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act relates to the procedure to be applied to Small Cause Court suits. That sec...
Barada Kanta Ray Vs. Sheikh Maijuddi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.109
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are as follows:(1) Whether a Provincial Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to order an attachment of immoveable property before judgment?(2) Whether the case of Kedarnath Paramanik v. Hem Nath Karmakar 70 Ind. Cas. 841 : 49 C. 994; (1923) A.I.R. (C) 176 or the case of Sadek Ali v. Samed Ali : AIR1924Cal193 was correctly decided?2. The reference arises by reason of conflicting decision of this Court in two cases viz., Kedarnath Paramanik v. Hem Nath Karmakar 70 Ind. Cas. 841 : 49 C. 994; (1923) A.I.R. (C) 176 and Sadek Ali v. Samed Ali : AIR1924Cal193 3. In the former case it was decided that a Provincial Small Cause Court can attach before judgment immoveable property under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. In the latter case it was decided that a Provincial Court of Small Causes has no power to attach immoveable property before judgment under Order XXXVIII of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 and that an order of su...
Jatindra Mohan Banerjee Vs. Gouri Bala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.608
Chotzner, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and upon the Opposite Party to show cause why the order specified in the petition should not be set aside.2. It is said that the petitioner and the opposite party are husband and wife and that they have not been living together for nearly twenty years, and it is admitted that during that period the petitioner has been paying her a monthly sum of Es. 10 under an order under Section 488 of the Cr.P.C.3. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party had been living in her father's house up till some time in December 1923 when she gave birth to an illegitimate child and was driven away by her brother who was living with her and her mother in. that house. The petitioner thereupon applied to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate for, the cancellation of the maintenance order. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the application. The Magistrate observed that though the child was illegitimate 'there is no...
Ram Khalawan Ahir Vs. Tulsi Telini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1040,84Ind.Cas.444
Chotzner, J.1. This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and Beni Madhab Karmakar to show cause why the order passed by Mr. Khan on the 4th of May, 1923, and the order passed by Mr. Ali on the 26th of April, 1924, should not be revised and such other order passed as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The allegations In the petition may be briefly stated. A theft was committed in the house of the petitioner on the 24th of April, 1922, when jewellery and cash to the value of about Rs. 18,000 were stolen. On the 19th of July the shop of Beni Madhab Karmakar was searched and a quantity of gold ornaments was discovered. Upon certain statements made by him the Opposite party Tulsi Telini, who was the accused in the case and is said to have been at the time an occupant of a room in the petitioner's house, was arrested on a charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. She was however, not tried under that section but under Section 54-A of the Calcutta Police Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »