Kolkata Court May 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. Mofizel Peada
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal909
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge of the 24 Pergannahs in the case of Mofizel Peada: and the learned Judge has recommended that he should be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. There were 13 persons involved in the charge, all of whom, with the exception of Fazal Zamindar, ware convicted of an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. Mofizel Peada was found not guilty under Sections 302 and 342 read with Section 109, but the jury found him guilty of an offence under Section 147 and also of an offence under Section 304 (A).3. Dhanu Peada was found not guilty of an offence under Section 802 read with Section 109 and also of an offence under Section 342 read with Section 109: but, as I have already said, he was found guilty under Section 147, I.P.C.4. That there was a riot on the 28th June 1924, there can be no doubt, between the party of the accused on the one hand and the party to which Momtaz Molla, the man who was killed...
Ramjoo Mahomed Vs. Haridas Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1087,(1925)ILR52Cal695
Page, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claims specific performance of an alleged agreement to lease certain premises known as No. 7, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, and, in the alternative, damages for breach of the said agreement.2. It appears from the evidence that on the 19th November 1921 an interview took place between the plaintiff and the first defendant, who was then the owner of the said premises, as the result of which the terms of the alleged agreement to lease the said premises were embodied in the following, two letters: Calcutta, 19-11-1921, No. 7, Bowbazar Street.3. Babu Haridas Mallick, of 46, Hidaram Banerji Lane.4. Dear Sir,5. I do hereby agree to take by our personal settlement your house and premises No. 7, Bowbazar Street on a lease for 21 years under following terms:(1) Four thousand rupees salami.(2) Rent Rs. 400 per month.(3) Both taxes, owner and occupier, should be paid by me.(4) Thorough repair will be done every five years.(5) The period of lease will be settled f...
Rakhal Chandra Bardhan Vs. Prosad Chandra Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal73,90Ind.Cas.229
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the principal defendant Rakhal Chandra Prodhan, and it is directed against a decree declaring the right of the plaintiffs to the property in suit as reversioners to the estate of the late Rakhal Chandra Banerji and directing that they should recover possession with mesne profits.2. The facts that need be stated are as follows. One Haridas Banerjee died, leaving a widow, three daughters, and one son, the Rakhal Chandra Banerjee just mentioned. Rakhal died in 1883, soon after his father, without issue, and his estate went to his widowed mother Thakomani. Thakomani died in 1909, and her three daughters were then the mothers of nine sons, and these nine grandsons inherited each l/9th of the estate. The original plaintiffs are the two sons of Kusum Kumari; they have bought the shares of five of their cousins, and thus become owners of 7/9th. The other 2/9th belonged to the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, and these defendants were transferred to the ca...
Panchi Dasi Minor by Her Next Friend Gopi Nath Saha Vs. Khiroda Dasi a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal171,90Ind.Cas.727
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain sum of money borrowed on a mortgage-bond at an interest of 37 1/2 per cent, per annum. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit in full. The lower Appellate Court modified the decree of the first Court by reducing the rate of interest to 12 1/2 per cent, per annum on the ground that the rate of interest was excessive and the transaction as between the parties was substantially unfair. In dealing with this point the learned District Judge says: 'I am of opinion that the argument is valid. The parties were near relations and there was good security given for the debt. In the circumstances the interest charged was clearly excessive and as between the parties the transaction was substantially unfair'. This finding, however, by itself is not sufficient to justify the Court in reducing the rate of interest. The learned Judge ought to have gone further and it was necessary for him to find that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›