Kolkata Court March 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.
Sreelal Manglulal Vs. Lister Antiseptic Dressing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1062
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff firm, Sreelal Mangtulai, against the judgment of Mr. Justice Thornhill, which was delivered on the 20th of June 1924.2. The suit was brought under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was based upon five hundis, four of which were dated the 19th of May 1922, and one was dated the 23rd of May 1922. In all material respects they were in the same form; and it will be sufficient if I refer to that which is marked A. It was in these terms: ' Calcutta. 19th May 1922. (180) One hundred and eighty days after date without grace, I promise to pay to Messrs. Mitter and Sons or order the sum of rupees five thousand only for value received in cash. Sd. Mrigendra Lal Mitra.' That document appears to be in the form of an ordinary promissory note; but for some reason, which is not apparent at present, it was accepted by Mrigendra Lal Mitra on the face of the document. It was endorsed by the payees, 'Mitter and Sons.' There was a further endor...
Sreelal Mangtulal Vs. the Lister Antiseptic Dressing Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal802
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff firm, Sreelal Mangtulal, against the judgment of Mr. Justice Thornhill which was delivered on the 20th of June 1924.2. The suit was brought under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and was based, upon five hundis, four of which were dated the 19th of May 1922, and one was dated the 23rd of May 1922. In all material respects they were in the same form; and, it will be sufficient if I refer to that which is marked A. It was in these terms: 'Calcutta, 19th May 1922. One hundred and eighty days after date without grace I promise to pay to Messrs. Mitra and Sons or order the sum of rupees five thousand, only for value 'received in cash, Sd. Mrigendra Lal Mitra.' That document appears to be in the form of an ordinary promissory note; but for some reason, which is not apparent at present, it was accepted by Mrigendra Lal Mitra on the face of the document. It was endorsed by the payees, 'Mitra and Sons'. There was a further endorsem...
Amir Chand Khanna Vs. Anukul Chandra Bhandari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.802
1. This appeal arises out of certain orders passed in an insolvency proceeding. One Jogesh Chandra Chatterji presented a petition to be adjudicated an insolvent on the 7th January 1922 and to his petition attached a schedule giving list of 12 creditors. He was adjudicated an insolvent on the 5th April 1922 and a Receiver was appointed who appears to have sold up the assets and thereby collected funds for part payment to the creditors. Thereafter in February and March 1923 six persons Anukul Chandra Bhandari, Bhola Nath Mitra, Amarendra Nath Mallik, Naran Chandra Ghose, Kunja Behari Manna and Fazley Huq Sheikh, who were not among the creditors mentioned in the schedule, applied to be entered therein and the learned Additional District Judge ordered ex parte that their names be so entered On the 27th April 1923, the present appellant who is a creditor mentioned in the schedule put in a petition stating that those debts were bogus debts, and the Judge then ordered the Receiver to report i...
Lal Mea and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal663
1. This rule is unopposed and we have not had the advantage of hearing the case argued on behalf of the Crown. The learned District Magistrate in showing cause states that he has nothing to add to what is in the judgment. In the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the point of law is fully and ably discussed. But we are not in agreement with the decision of the lower appellate Court as to the effect of the non-compliance with the provisions of Clause (5) of Section 165 of, the Code. This is a new provision introduced in the Code by the Amending Act of 1923 and it is, obviously intended as an extra safeguard to protect individuals against general or roving searches. To hold that the omission to comply with the provisions of this clause did not affect the powers of search given to police officers under the Code would have the effect of rendering this clause in many cases a dead letter. We hold that it is essential that a police officer conducting a search under Section 165 ...
Rabindra Nath Dutt Vs. Abdul Ahad and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal781
ORDERC.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter a point of some novelty has arisen. Mr. P.C. Basu counsel on behalf of one Rabindra Nath Dutt applies for the admission of the plaint under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit being one purporting to be laid under O.37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The cause of action has arisen on nonpayment of principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the defendant so far back as the 29th July 1922. The executant of the promissory note undertook to repay the principal with interest at the rata of 12 per cent. per annum on demand. The Master, before whom the plaint was presented in the first instance, refused to admit it as a plaint under Order 37 on the ground that the suit has not been brought within six months from the date when the debt became due and payable, and he accordingly held that the plaint could not be admitted. As I understand the matter, the Master raised no objection to the admission of the plaint as a suit broug...
Gouri Prasad Dey Vs. Chartered Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal884
Page, J.1. The issue in this suit is of fundamental importance for it touches the liberty of the subject. The plaintiff claims damages for false imprisonment, and it becomes necessary to consider under what conditions in India a private individual is entitled to cause the arrest of another person. Now, the Court is a jealous guardian of the right of personal freedom, and requires any interference with the liberty of the subject to be strictly justified. Until the 6nal address of counsel the bearing of the suit proceeded upon the assumption that the law in India on this matter was analogous to that obtaining in England. In both countries various statutes are in existence under which in the particular circumstances therein referred to a tight of arrest is given, but in England the common law relating to the right of arrest possessed by a private person is in an anomalous and unsatisfactory state. At common law a private individual is justified in himself arresting a person or causing him...
Sudhanya Kumar Dass Vs. Saik Ismail
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal956,90Ind.Cas.844
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Bepin Behari Ghose, dated the 11th April 1923.2. The question which arises for our decision is whether the learned Judge was tight in holding that) a right of oocupancy acquired by an under-raiyat by custom descends to his heirs.3. The point, so far as I can ascertain, has never been decided.4. By Section 26 of the Bengal Tenancy Act if a raiyat dies intestate in respect of a right of a oocupancy the right descends like other immoveable property subject to any custom to the contrary and the learned Judge considers that once an under-raiyat proves that he has acquired a right of occupancy he is clothed with all the rights which have been described as the incidents of occupancy right under Chap. V of the Bengal Tenancy Acts in the absence of any custom to the contrary, and he thinks that to hold otherwise would be to give an under-raiyat an occupancy right which would be barren of any re...
Kanchan Molla and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1015
1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted on the following charges: First, that they on the 25th September 1924, committed house breaking at night entering into the dwelling hut of the complainant by cutting sindh with intent to commit theft and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 457, Indian Penal Code; secondly, that they on the same day of September 1924 committed theft of money and ornaments valued about 1,500 Rupees from the dwelling hut of the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. On their conviction on the first charge they have been each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 100. On their conviction on the second charge they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 200 each, and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run one after the other.2. This Rule has been issued calling on the District Magistrate to show cause...
Upendra Nath Jana and anr. Vs. S.M. Shibadasi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1053
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued to eject the defendants from a plot of land, 3 cottas and 14 chhataks in area, on the following allegations. The property in question belonged to one Kedar Nath Banerjee who is now dead and on his death it devolved on his widow Khiroda Sundari. Kedar had three daughters Amritamoyi, Mrinalini and Paribala. On the 5th September 1915 Khiroda sold some 5 cottas of land which included the land in suit to her daughter, Paribala. Khiroda died in November 1916. Paribala sold the land on the 11th October 1919 to one J. C. Banerjee and he sold the land to the present plaintiff on the 31st August 1920 and now seeks to eject the defendants on the ground that they were on the land without any lease. It will appear that in 1322 this land was let out to Shama Baisnabi the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants for four years. The defence in the case was that Khiroda having limited estate of a Hindu widow the sale to he...
Year Mamud Mondal Vs. Paomocha Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1225
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of a fishery after establishment of the plaintiff's title to it. The plaintiff's case was that ha was in possession of this fishery for some-Mme, and after the expiry of the previous jama in Kartick 1319, he applied for a fresh jama for 10 years, which was granted by what he called a likhan, dated the 2nd Magh 1319. It is alleged that the defendant subsequently dispossessed him from the fishery in Pous 1326 and hence this suit.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the likhan on which he based his title was really a lease for 10 years and, therefore, it was necessary that it should be registered; and as it was unregistered it conferred no tibia on the plaintiff; he was, therefore, incompetent to sue for recovery of possession from She defendants. No evidence was taken in this case in the Courts below.3. Two points have bean raised in this appeal: first, that the likhan which the lower Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »