Kolkata Court January 1925 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.
Emperor Vs. Jitendra Nath Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.709
C.C. Ghose, J.1. Two persons have been brought up before me for trial on various charges Before the charges could be read out to the prisoners in the dock, learned Counsel for one of them, namely, Jitendra Nath Bose, submitted the following matters for my consideration. It appears that the prisoner, Jitendra Nath Bose, was indicted before this Court sometime in December 1920, along with another person named Haridas Mullick, who is now the other prisoner in the dock. Haridas Mullick was then an absconder, and the then Advocate-General of Bengal, on behalf of the King-Emperor, informed this Court that he would not further prosecute the said Jitendra Nath Bose on the charges which had been framed, and he prayed that, under Section 333 of the Or P.C. all further proceedings against the said Jitendra Nath Bose might be stayed upon the said charges. Thereupon the learned Judge, then presiding at the Criminal Sessions in this Court, passed an ordar to the effect that all proceedings on the sa...
Nalini Kanta Mukherji and ors. Vs. Hari Nikari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal663
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendants in a suit against a decision of the District Judge of Jessore, dated the 4th April 1922, reversing a decision of the Munsif of the 1st Court at Jhenidah. It will be convenient first of all to state the facts. In the year 1916, the present Appellants instituted in the Court of Small Causes, a suit against the Respondents on a hand-note. A month after the institution of the suit, namely, on the 28th April 1916, the present Appellants obtained an ex parte decree against the Respondents for a gum of Rs. 59-8 as. The case of the Respondents is that they knew nothing of that decree until the 7th of June 1919, when certain moveable articles of theirs were seized in execution of the decree. Thereupon the present Respondents applied under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, contending that summonses had been suppressed. These proceeding a were contested, but the present Respondents failed in their application, and it was ...
Hara Mohan Banikya Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Chakravarty and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1248
Suhrawardy, J.1. The main and substantial ground on which this appeal has been pressed is that the finding of the lower appellate Court that the pottah in suit created a tenure the rent of which was not liable to enhancement is not correct. The tenure it appears was created by the pottah dated the 30th December 1885. It was a nimhowla pottah granted by Rajalakshmi Debya (who was the howladar) to the predecessor of the defendants. It begins with the following words: 'There was my husband's permission to grant to you nimhowladari pottah in respect of the entire lands and jamas comprised in the said howla at a profit of Rs. 75.' Then follow some words which it is not material to quote and then it proceeds to run as follows: 'I grant to you a nimhowladari pottah in respect of the entire lands and jamas of the said howla. You shall, without objection, pay into my office Rs. 102-7-6 being the rent for the howla and Rs. 75 being the amount of my profits -the total amount being Company's Rs. 1...
Nalinikanta Mukherji and ors. Vs. Hari Nikari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1925
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.779
William Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit against a decision of the District Judge of Jessore, dated the 4th April, 1922, reversing a decision of the Munsif of the First Court at Jhenidah. It will be convenient first of all to state the facts. In the year 1916, the present appellants instituted in the Court of Small Causes a suit against the respondents on a hand-note. A month after the institution of the suit, namely, on the 20th April, 1916, the present appellants obtained an ex parte decree against the respondents for a sum of Rs. 59-8-0. The case of the respondents is that they knew nothing of that decree until the 7th of June 1919, when certain moveable articles of theirs were seized in execution: of the decree. Thereupon the present respondents applied under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree contending that summonses had been suppressed. These proceedings were contested but the present respondents failed in their applicati...
NabIn Chandra Haldar Vs. BipIn Chandra Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal229,87Ind.Cas.555
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the sale held in: certain execution case was illegal and also for confirmation of the plaintiff's possession in respect of the land covered by the sale. The sale took place on the 22nd November 1918 and the present suit was instituted on the 21st May 1919. The defence was to the effect that the suit was barred by reason of the provisions of Section 47 of the C. P.C. and that there was no irregularity or illegality in connection with the sale. The First Court held that the suit did not lie and treated the plaint as an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P.C., and dismissed, the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the Subordinate Judge has found that so far as the plaintiffs' allegation was to the effect that the decree in execution of which the sale took place had been satisfied that allegation was not established. He, however, held that the processes were fraudulently suppr...
Madhusudhan Kowar Vs. Girindra Narayan Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1185,87Ind.Cas.561
Suhrawardy, J.1. The only substantial question argued in this appeal is one of limitation. The decree sought to be executed in the present proceeding was passed on the 13th June 1912. It was executed in 1915, and on the 12th June 1918 another application for execution was put in by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor filed objections to the execution on the ground that he had satisfied the decree in full out of Court and that the decree was incapable of execution. These objections were heard and dismissed on the 21st February 1919 on which date the execution Court dismissed the execution also and passed the following order: Miscellaneous Case No. 200 of 1918 is rejected. This case ' is dismissed.' The judgment-debtor, however, appealed against this order dismissing his objections and the case was remanded by the appellate Court for rehearing. The miscellaneous case, started on the objection of the judgment-debtor, was reheard and again dismissed on the 20th May 1920. He again appeal...
Jnanendra Nath Roy and anr. Vs. Nalini Mohan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1262,87Ind.Cas.565
Suhrawardy, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for rent in respect of four holdings, or, to be more correct to respect of three holdings, the last two holdings being amalgamated into one The four holdings were originally held by the defendants on lower jamas. On the 21st February 1916 the defendants executed a kabuliyat, in favour of the land-lords agreeing to pay enhanced rent for the jamas within the statutory limit, namely, not more than two annas in the rupee.2. In respects of the first jama, which was for a plot of land measuring 4 bighas, 12 cottas, 8 chattacks, it is staged in the kabuliyat that the jama was increased by two annas in the rupee to Rs. 10-2-6. In schedule (kha) attached to the kabuliyat another jama is mentioned, which is described as one bigha of land ' for which an agreed quantity of paddy was to be delivered but which mode of payment was converted into the money rant of Rs. 5-3-9, and this sum is amalgamated with the enhanced annual jana, Rs. 10-2-6,...
Askaran Choutmal Vs. E.i. Ry. and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal696
Page, J.1. This motion raises a question of general interest and importance relating to the authority of counsel to compromise a suit. The material facts are simple and can readily be ascertained. The suit out of which this motion arises was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 3,117-13 as damages for the non-deli-very of a consignment of ghee which the defendant company had accepted for transportation. Oil the 11th November, 1924 the suit was in the list for hearing, but was adjourned by consent. On the 20th or 21st November, Mr. A. K. Roy, counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. S.K. Gupta, counsel for the defendant, in the presence of Mr. Sushil Sen, solicitor for the plaintiff, held a meeting in the Bar Library for the purpose of negotiating a settlement of the suit. Mr. Gupta suggested that the claim should be settled for Rs. 1,500; Mr. Boy asked for Rs. 2,000, and eventually it was agreed that a decree should be passed for Rs. 1,750 in full settlement of the plaintiff's claim and costs. On...
Askaran Choutmal Vs. the E.i.Ry. Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal386
Page, J.1. This motion raises a question of general interest and importance relating to the authority of counsel to compromise a suit. The material facts are simple and can readily be ascertained. The suit out of which this motion arises was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 3,117-13 as damages for the non-delivery of a consignment of ghee which the defendant company had accepted for transportation. On the 11th November 1924 the suit was in the list for hearing, but was adjourned by consent. On the 20th or 21st November, Mr. A. K. Hoy, counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. S. K. Gupta, counsel for the defendant, in the presence of Mr. Sushil Sen, solicitor for the plaintiff, held a meeting in the Bar Library for the purpose of negotiating a settlement of the suit. Mr. Gupta suggested that the cLalm should be settled for Rs. 1,500; Mr. Roy asked for Rs. 2,000, and eventually it was agreed that a decree should be passed for Rs. 1,750 in full settlement of the plaintiff's cLalm and costs. On t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›