Kolkata Court May 1925 Judgments
Vernon Milward Bason Vs. Anne Helen Skone and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal945,94Ind.Cas.532
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a rule sailing upon the plaintiff Vernon Milward Bason to show cause why he should not be committed to jail or otherwise dealt with for contempt of Court for having insulted one Ashit Kumar Pal, a clerk In the service of Messrs. Orr Dignam & Co., the attorney's for the defendant Anne Helen Skone, in manner stated in the latter's petition.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff Bason instituted this suit against the defendant A. II. Skone and another for damages for breach of a certain agreement. The suit was dismissed with costs on scale No. 2 on the 96h February 1925. The defendant's bill of costs was taxed and an allocatur was issued on the 2nd May, 1925, for a sum of Rs. 5,827-4-0. It was served on Bason's attorneys on the 5th May 1925. On she 9th May, 1925, the defendant A. H. Skone took out a notice under Order 21, Rule 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code signed by the Master of this Court requiring the plaintiff to appear in person befo...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal Goenka Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1251,(1925)ILR52Cal962,90Ind.Cas.317
Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule issued by my learned Brothers Mr. Justice Newbould and Mr. Justice Bepin Behary Ghose calling upon the Municipal Magistrate and on the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause, why the order complained of should not be set aside or such other order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The order complained of was an order made by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta, dated the 28th of February 1925, by which the Magistrate directed the demolition of certain unauthorized structures by the Corporation of Calcutta at the expense of the owner.3. The proceedings in this case present some peculiarities. The alleged unauthorized structures were made before the 1st of April 1924. The notice which was served upon the petitioner was headed ' Section 364 Act III (B. C.) of 1923 (i. e.. the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, which came into force on the 1st of April 1924) The notice was to the effect that the petitioner was di...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabunnessa Bibi and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1064
1. This is an appeal arising out of resumption proceedings under Regulation II of 1819. Certain lands to which the appellants claim lakhiraj title, were assessed with revenue on the ground that they had originally formed the bed of a navigable river and had subsequently been included by the appellants within their lakhiraj land. As provided in the Regulation, the decision of the Board of Revenue was questioned in a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh. He decreed that suit, holding that the land in suit could not be assessed with revenue, as the claim of Government was barred by limitation. On appeal to the District Judge that decision was reversed and the suit brought by the appellants was dismissed.2. The finding of the lower appellate Court is attacked on three grounds: firstly, that the resumption proceedings were illegal on account of several irregularities; secondly, that the claim to resumption was barred by res judicata and thirdly, that the claim was barred...
Tag this Judgment!Banshibadan Mandal Vs. Chhaunat Bibi Alias Chhannu Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.228
1. This is an appeal by the auction-purchaser in execution of a money decree. The respondents deposited the amount for which the property was sold and purchased by the appellant; but it was contended the money deposited was short by 12-annas. Both the Courts below have held that this was due to a bona fide mistake and set aside the sale. The second appeal is from the appellate order of the District Judge of 24-Parganahs.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents that no second appeal lies. We think that this contention should prevail. The order passed after the deposit made under Order XXI, Rule 89 is an order under Rule 92. An appeal lies from an order passed under that rule under Order XLIII, Rule 1(j), C.P.C. But no second appeal lies from the order passed upon first appeal, under Section 104, Clause (2). It is argued by the learned Advocate or the appellant that as the auction-purchaser was the decree-holder, the matter is covered by Section 47; and under Section 2, C.P...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Kumar Singha and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal789,96Ind.Cas.594
1. This is an appeal against a decree in a suit on an instalment bond. The question that has to be decided is whether the suit was barred by limitation. The first Court held that no portion of the claim was barred and decreed the plaintiff's suit in full. On appeal the lower Appellate Court held that the suit was barred in respect of the first four instalments.2. The instalment bond contains the following provisions in case of default:In default of kists, we shall pay interest for the sum defaulted, at the rate of Rs. 3-2-0 per month, without objection, amicably or upon suit, till the last day of payment. If default is made in any one instalment' you will be at liberty to realise the entire money with interest amicably or by suit.' The learned District Judge has held' that no authority binding in his Court has been produced in support of the view that the stipulation that on default of one kist the plaintiffs would be at liberty to claim the whole sum has the same effect as the stipula...
Tag this Judgment!Banshibadan Mandal Vs. Chhaunat Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal400
1. This is an appeal by the auction-purchaser in execution of a money decree. The respondents deposited the amount for which the property was sold sand purchased by the appellant; but it was contended the money deposited was short by 12 annas. Both the Courts below have held that this was due to a bona fide mistake and set aside the sale. The second appeal is from the appellate order of the District Judge of 24-Par-ganas.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents that no second appeal lies. We think that this contention should prevail. The order passed after the deposit made under Order 21, Rule 89 is an order under E. 92. An appeal lies from an order passed under that yule under Order 43, Rule 1(j), Code of Civil Procedure. But no second appeal lies from the order passed upon first appeal, under Section 104, Clause (2). It is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that as the auction-purchaser was the decree-holder, the matter is covered by Section 47; and under ...
Tag this Judgment!Hogarth Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Mitsui Bussan Kaisha Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal922
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendants Messrs. Mitsui Bussan Kaisha, Limited, for an order that id may be declared that an award made on the 11th March, 1925 by Messrs. A.O. Brown and L. Edwards, arbitrators, is null and void and that the said award may be set aside and cancelled and that the respondents the Hogarth Shipping Co. Ltd. should pay to the petitioners the costs of and incidental to this application.2. The facts are as follows :-On the 1st February, 1924, Samuel Crawford Hogarth, Hugh Hogarth, Barclay Hogarth and John Baird Henderson, carrying on business in co-partnership as shipowners under the name, style and firm of H. Hogarth at No. 24, St. Enoch Square. in Glasgow, instituted a suit in this Court being suit No. 358 of 1924, against the Mitsui Bussan Kaisha, Limited praying for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,333-5-4 as damages for detention of a certain vessel named ' Baron Jedburgh ' and of a further sum of Rs. 31,666-10-8 as demurrage. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Purusottam Mahesri and ors. Vs. Panchanan Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.805
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued to eject the defendants under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the ground that their lease had expired. The facts of the case are these: the defendants first of all took a lease of some 5 kanis of land in 1310 in Lal Manirhat Bander for a term of five years for the purpose of establishing a shop on it. The defendants then took one additional kani of land at a total rental of Rs. 69 per annum for 6 kanis of land and there was a fresh lease for five years. At the expiry of the term the plaintiffs demanded an enhancement of rent and a fresh lease was given for another five years from 1322 to 1326 at a rental of Rs. 78-per annum. The defendants executed a kabuliyat in the plaintiffs' favour on the 1st Jaistha 1322. This lease expired in 1326 and the defendants were asked by the plaintiffs to evacuate the land. This they refused to do and hence this suit. The case of the defendants was that they ...
Tag this Judgment!Karunamoy Sinha Vs. Tinkari Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal511,91Ind.Cas.683
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover arrears of rent cesses and damages amounting to Rs. 148-14-3 at the rate of Rs 33 as the annual jama due for Kartick 1323 to 1326 Chaitra. The case of the defendant was that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties, because certain persons. Kalipada Bepin Behari and Benode Behari Singha were not joined as parties to the suit. There was a further plea that as the plaintiff had let out 3 bighas out of the entire land to a third party the defendant was entitled to get suspension of all payment of rent.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that it was bad for non joinder of parties and this view was up held on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge.3. In appeal to this Court it has been argued, that it was not open to the defendant to take this plea of non-joinder. In a former suit for rent between the, parties the defendant took the same plea and the point was deci...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mohit Kumar Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal89,(1925)ILR52Cal881
Page, J.1. At the Fifth Criminal Sessions of the High Court for 1924, Mohit Kumar Mukerjee, Bankim Chandra Ghose and Surendra Nath Shaha were tried before me under Sections 120B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of conspiring-dishonestly or fraudulently to use as genuine a certain receipt for Rs. 50,000, when they knew or had reason to believe that the receipt was a forged document, in consequence of which conspiracy the said document was so used as aforesaid. The receipt in question purported to acknowledge the payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000 as salami in respect of a sub-lease of certain mining rights in lands of which the firm of Dickie & Co. were the lessees. Dickie and Co. became insolvent, and in the course of the insolvency proceedings the Official Assignee became aware of a claim which had been preferred by the accused Bankim and Suren that the accused Mohit, as one of the partners of Dickie & Co., had executed in their favour a sub-lease of the said mining rights. An...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »