Kolkata Court November 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.
Gopiram Bhotica Vs. Bisseswar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal546,93Ind.Cas.81
Pearson, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claims certain rent in respect of premises No. 176. Harisson Road, together with a certain sum as compensation for wrongful repudiation of the lease and for damage to the building itself in consequence of the wrongful acts of the defendant.2. The plaintiff sets up an agreement for lease on the 23rd March 1922, the agreement being made between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant's son, Chunilal, on the other. Under the terms of the agreement Rs. 300 was paid in advance as a de-.posit to be set off against the last month's rent. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, went into possession on the 29th. March 1922, from which date three years was to commence, but he remained there only until the 3rd of March 1924, on which date admittedly he left the premises. Subsequent to his leaving, the plaintiff says, he was unable to re-let the premises until some time in January 1925 when he obtained a tenant at the rate of Rs. 211 : consequent...
Narendra Nath Das Vs. Haran Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal730,94Ind.Cas.177
Buckland, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of my learned brother C. C. Ghose, J., dated the 23rd January 1925 dismissing the application of Narendra Nath Das, the present appellant, to set aside an award dated the 10th September 1924 made by certain persons purporting to act as arbitrators oil the reference of a dispute between him and the respondent Haran Chandra Bose.2. What the dispute was or how it arose it is not in the least degree material to enquire and the facts with which we are concerned begin with the submission dated the 1st August 1915 whereby the parties submitted to three named individuals, Rama Nath Ghose, Sarat Chandra Ghose and Jnan Chandra Ghose, the settlement of their differences. The terms of the submission are as follows:I Sree Narendra Nath Das and I Sree Haran Chandra Ghose, we both appoint you as arbitrators for settlement of our difference in connection with the premises No. 41 Newgipukur Lane and with our dealings between each other; whatever decisi...
Mitsui Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. Vs. Hogarth Shipping Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal722,94Ind.Cas.182
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Mitsui Bussan Kaisha, Ltd., against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose delivered on the 18th May 1925.2. The judgment was delivered in respect of an application by the appellants that an award dated 14th March 1925 should be declared null and void and that it be set aside, cancelled and taken off the file of this Court.3. The learned Judge dismissed the application and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, he made no order as to costs.4. Against this order of dismissal the appellants have appealed.5. The facts are as follows:By a charter party dated the 26th November 1920 made between Messrs. Graham & Co. acting as agents for the owners of the good steamer called a first class steamer to carry 6,500 tons cargo 10 per cent. more or less and the appellants (charterers) it was agreed that the steamer should load at Calcutta a full and complete cargo of coal in bulk and being so loaded should proceed...
Khetra Mohun Ghose and anr. Vs. Lakhi Kanta Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal46
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah confirming a decision of the Munsif. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff's for possession of certain land on establishment of their tenancy right therein. The plaintiffs' case was that (he lands in suit appertained to the chakran lands of Defendant No. 3 which he held under a service tenure under a zemindar; that the lands were resumed by the landlord on the surrender by Defendant No. 3 and that they were leased by the landlord to the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs say that failing to obtain possession of the land leased to them they were forced to commence these proceedings.2. Two contentions wore urged before us on behalf of the appellants. First of all they say that the lands were not chakran lands but niskar lands of Defendant No. 3 and that they had acquired occupancy rights in these lands by cultivating them as raiyats for a period of over ...
Majid Mia Vs. Munshi Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal860,94Ind.Cas.255
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued at the instance of the defendant No. 3 in a suit tried by a Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff claimed wasilat from certain defendants of whom the defendant No. 3 was one. Previous to the institution of this suit the plaintiff had instituted a suit to establish his title to an undivided 5-annas share in a certain land and also for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The claim for mesne profits was subsequently withdrawn. That suit ultimately ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff as regards a 4-annas and 10-gunda share in the lands and a decree for joint possession of the lands with the defendants. Thereafter the present suit was instituted. It is not necessary to refer to all the proceedings in connection with this suit: It is said that at first it was instituted as a suit for compensation in the Court of the Munsif but ultimately it was found that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain it as it really was a suit for recovery ...
Ram Sakhi Debya Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Radha Nath De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal827
Mukerji, J.1. These two Rules are directed against an order passed by the earned Munsif of Jamalpur on the 25th February 1925, by which he directed a resale of certain properties which had been previously sold in execution of two decrees for rent. The decree-holder himself purchased the properties for Rs. 71 and Rs. 89 at the sale. The bids were accepted by the Nazir, the decree-holder having filed a petition to set off his decretal dues against a part of the purchase money. The Nazir submitted the usual report to the Court and the Court thereupon, on the 25th February 1925, on receipt of the Nazir's report ordered the cases to be put up on the 23rd March 1925 for confirmation of the sales.2. On the 25th February 1925 petitions were filed by one Radha Nath Dey in the said two cases in which he stated that he had filed vakalatnamas in those cases and had given instruction for bidding at the sales but that the officers of the decree-holder acting collusively with some other persons had c...
L.R. Counsell Vs. Srimati Sukumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.1011
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This case came before this Court once on a previous occasion from; a decision of the President of the Tribunal. On that occasion the President had dismissed the application for fixing a standard rent on the ground that the demised premises did not fall within the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Act. The decision of the learned President of the Tribunal was set aside by this Court and the case was sent back to him for trial of the other issues involved in the case.2. The present Rule was obtained by the tenant for the revision of the judgment now pronounced by the President fixing the standard rent in revision of the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller.3. Before the Rent Controller the relevant question that was raised apparently was that the premises were let out on a higher rent than what was alleged by the tenant on the 1st of November 1918 The Pleader for the landlady made an application before the Rent Controller to the effect that the hearing of the matter ...
L.R. Counsell Vs. Sukumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal305
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This case came before this Court once on a previous occasion from a decision of the President of the Tribunal. On that occasion the President had dismissed the application for fixing a standard rent on the ground that the demised premises did not fall within the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Act. The decision of the learned President of the Tribunal was set aside by this Court and the case was sent back to him for trial of the other issues involved in the case.2. The present Rule was obtained by the tenant for the revision of the, judgment now pronounced by the President fixing the standard rent in revision of the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller.3. Before the Rent Controller the relevant question that was raised apparently was that the premises were let out on a higher rent than what was alleged by the tenant on the 1st of November 1918. The pleader for the landlady made an application before the Rent Controller to the effect that the hearing of the matter...
Brajaballav Ghose and anr. Vs. Akhoy Bagdi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal705
Mukerji, J.1. The Defendant No. 1 is the appellant in this appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of a tank and some paddy land on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the same from the Bariks who were pro-forma defendants in the suit and that after such purchase he was dispossessed by the principal defendants on the strength of an order obtained by them in their favour in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The defence of the principal defendants was that the property did not belong to the Bariks and neither they nor the plaintiffs were in possession thereof. The Courts below have decreed the suit.2. On behalf of the defendants-appellants two grounds have been urged in support of the appeal. The first ground relates to the reception in evidence of a kobala, dated the 21st Joistha 1326. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that this document requires registration and that inasmu...
Sm. Bhaba Sundari Vs. Ram Kamal Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal27
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a mortgage suit. The mortgage bond was executed, by the defendant's husband, who has died and the defence taken was that the mortgage had been discharged by a payment of the principal sum of Rs. 100 which was due thereon and that the interest which was due has been remitted by the plaintiff. The first Court dismissed the suit accepting the story of the defendant but the lower appellate Court has decreed the suit for what remained due on the mortgage holding that the evidence tendered by the defendant to show satisfaction by payment of Rs. 100 and by remission of the interest was not admissible having' regard to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. In our opinion, the evidence is admissible to show satisfaction of the mortgage in the manner alleged by the defendant. We have been referred to two decisions, one of the Bombay High Court in Jagannath v. Shankar [1920] 4 Bom. 55, and the other in G.P. Mallappa v. Matun Naga Chetty [19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »