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.
Gouri Prosad Dey Vs. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal615
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 final address of counsel the hearing 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 right 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 hi...
Rabindra Nath Dutt Vs. Abdul Ahad and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal954
Ghose, J.1. In this matter a point of some novelty has arisen. Mr. P. C. Basu, counsel on behalf of Rabindra Nath Dutt, applies for the admission of the plaint under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit being one purporting to be laid under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The cause of action has arisen on non-payment 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 rate 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 XXXVII 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 would not be admitted. As I understand the matter, the Master raised no objection to the admission of the plaint as a suit...
indra Narayan Ghose and anr. Vs. Tarini Prosad Guin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal165,90Ind.Cas.746
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad reversing a decision of the Munsif of Kandi. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain property on declaration of his title thereto. The plaintiff's title was based on a purchase at a rent sale on the 21st May 1918. The defence of the defendants was that they had purchased the property on the 17th September 1913 in execution of a mortgage-decree in respect of which they were decree-holders and they alleged that as their mortgage had not been annulled under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the plaintiff could not recover his possession of the premises. The first Court dismissed the prayer for khas possession but declared that the plaintiff was entitled to get rent from the defendants in respect of the property. The second Court decreed the plaintiff's claim for kites possession holding that there wa...
Durlav Mondal and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Mukerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.177
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for rent at an enhanced rate. It appears that during the pendency of the suit in the Trial Court one of the co-sharers owning 4-annas of the proprietary rights compromised the suit with the defendants acknowledging them to be raiyats at fixed rate. After this compromise was filed an objection was taken on behalf of the defendants that the suit after the compromise ceased to be a suit by the whole body of the landlords and, therefore, was not maintainable.2. The learned Munsif held that the suit having been properly instituted could not be rendered incompetent by one of the co-sharers compromising the suit with the defendants. That view was upheld on appeal by the learned District Judge.3. The learned Vakil for the appellants, the defendants in the suit, urged two points before me. The first point was that in the circumstances which had happened the suit was incompetent as a suit for enhancement of rent. The ...
Robindra Nath Dutt Vs. Abdul Ahad and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.400
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter a point of some novelty has arisen. Mr. P.C. Basu, Counsel on behalf of Robindra Nath Dutt, applies, for admission of the plaint under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C., the suit being one purporting to be laid under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C.2. The cause of action has arisen oil 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 re-pay the principal with interest at the rate 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 XXXVII, 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 would not be admitted. As I understand the matter, the Master raised no objection to the admission of the plaint as a suit brought in the ordinary manne...
Hazarimull Hiralal Vs. Sadasukh Parrack and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal750
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present application on behalf of the lessors of premises Nos. 123, 124, 125, 125 and 126/1, Canning Street, and 4, and 5, Jackson Lane in the town of Calcutta under an indenture of lease dated the February 16th, 1920, for an order that the Official Receiver of this Court, who is the receiver in this suit, of the said leasehold properties, should make over possession to the said lessors, are as follows:It appears that by the indenture of lease dated the 16th February, 1920, one Sumermull Parruck was granted a lease of the said premises for a period of 41 years from the 1st January, 1918, and that one of the conditions in the said indenture was that if the said lessee or any of his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns becomes insolvent or bankrupt, it should be lawful for the lessors to re-enter the demised premises at any time thereafter and to re-possess and enjoy the same. By an indenture of mortgage dated the 3rd October, 1921, the...
Munshi Fazle Ahmed Vs. Rajendra Nath Roy Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.795
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,250 made up of Rs. 5,501 as earnest-money in connexion with the contract for sale of a plot of land, 22 bighas in area, and Rs. 749 being the amount of damages and interest. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and hence this appeal.2. The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint was that the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 proposed to sell the land to him for Rs. 13,200 and a bainapatra was executed by them in his favour on the 28th September, 1919, on receipt of Rs. 501 as earnest-money that later on he came to know that there were other owners who were unwilling to part with the property, and that at last he had to agree to increase the consideration to Rs. 20,100, upon which all the defendants executed in his favour another bainapatra on the 16th July 1920 on receipt of a further amount of Rs. 5,000 as earnest-money. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had stipulated to convey a good title to ...
Fazle Ahmed Vs. Rajendra Nath Roy Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal339
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,250 made up of Rs. 5,501 as earnest-money in connexion with the contract for sale of a plot of land 22 bighas in area, and Rs. 749 being the amount of damages and interest. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and hence this appeal.2. The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint was that the Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 proposed to sell the land to him for Rs. 13,200 and a bainapatra was executed by them in his favour on the 28th September, 1919, on receipt of Rs. 501 as earnest-money, that later on he came to know that there were other owners who were unwilling to part with the property, and that at last he had to agree to increase the consideration to Rs. 20,100, upon which all the defendants executed in his favour another bainapatra on the 16th July 1920 on receipt of a further amount of Rs. 5,000 as earnest-money. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had stipulated to convey a good title to ...
Nityaranjan Mandal and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal806
1. The only serious ground on which this application for transfer is based, is that the muktear who is appearing for the complainant is, as admitted by the learned Magistrate, a close relation of his, It is undesirable that a member of the legal profession should practise in a Court presided over by a near relation. The complainant in this case is a pleader land we are surprised that a member of that branch of the profession should have engaged a muktear whom he knew to be related to the Magistrate who would try the case. The muktearnama was not filed until the day on which the case was transferred to this Honorary Magistrate.2. We accordingly make this Rule absolute. We transfer the case from the file of the Honorary Magistrate Mr. A.P. Mukerjee to that of any other Magistrate whom the District Magistrate may select....
NesaraddIn Mandal Vs. Anath Nath Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal943
Duval, J.1. In this matter the plaintiff-respondent brought a suit to have the election of one Nesaraddin Mandal as President of the Bhandarbati Union Board declared void. The facts of this case are as follows and are not disputed.2. The period of office of the members of this union having come to an end, a fresh election and nomination of members took place, and the names of the members elected and nominated were notified in the Calcutta Gazette on March 5, 1924. In accordance with rule 32 of the rules issued under the Government notification No. 630 T.---L. S.-G. of October 13, 1919, the Magistrate of Hooghly on March 11, passed an order on the Subdivisional Officer to proceed with the election of a new President. Under Rule 36 of these rules the members had to elect the new President within one month of the order and on March 17, 1924 the Subdivisional Officer posted notices on the new members to the old President for service on them, fixing March 26, as the day on which the members...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »