Kolkata Court June 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.
Mt. Anupama Debi Vs. Gurudas Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1931Cal246
Greaves, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Buckland, J., dated 13th May last, refusing to adjudicate the respondent an insolvent, at the instance of the appellant. The learned Judge was asked to reconsider his order on 25th May, but he adhered to his previous decision and dismissed the application.2. The acts of insolvency alleged in the petition for adjudication were two in number, but the second one is not now relied on and need not be considered in this appeal, and the act of insolvency relied on is that, in execution of a money decree, obtained by one Jeebandas Agarwalla, in Suit No. 2349 of 1923, immovable property of the respondent was attached on 20th February 1924, and remained under attachment, at the date of she presentation of the petition namely 28th April 1925.3. There is no doubt that the attachment of 20th February 1924, was an available act of insolvency, had the petition been presented within three months of the 20th February 1924, but the appellant contends tha...
Mohendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal97,94Ind.Cas.5
Chakravarti, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the lands in suit appertained to a niskar which they possessed in the village Banki. The facts of the case shortly stated are these : The plaintiffs apparently had a niskar in the village Banki comprising 41 and odd bighas of land covered by a sanad in the name of their ancestor Shahib Ram. The lands in suit really form the site of what is called a gai'khai. The plaintiffs further stated that in the year 1903 the villagers of Banki and of other neighbouring villages complained against obstruction put by the plaintiffs on the water of that garkhai and the criminal Court took proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P.C. which resulted in an order against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, then brought a suit in the year 1904 for a declaration that the property was their niskar and that the defendants had no right of easement as claimed by them and as had been established in the proceedin...
Nawab Nuzhat-ud-dowla and ors. Vs. Beni Madhab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.692
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed under Section 47, C.P.C. The judgment-debtor is the appellant in this appeal. The application for execution was, filed by one Prince Sultan Hossain Mirza on the 11th April, 1922, for execution of a decree passed in Original Suit No. 3 of 1900 of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, of 24-Pergahas which was ultimately affirmed by the Privy Council in Appeal No. 16 of 1903. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the application is maintainable under the provisions of Section 47 of the C.P.C.2. The decree in question was in favour of one Prince Nanhey Mirza and others. By transfer of certain interests in the decree the persons who, have become entitled to the decree-holders' interests re these: A 10-annas share was sold to one Mehdi Hossain who in his, turn sold 4-annas out of his 10-annas to one Lala Mohun Lal. The 6:annas that remained with the original decree-holders have now been inherited. by three persons, namely...
Anupama Debi Vs. Gurudas Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.590
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Buckland, dated the 13th May last, refusing to adjudicate the respondent an insolvent, at the instance of the appellant. The learned Judge was asked to reconsider his order on the 25th May, but he adhered to his previous deci-sion and dismissed the application.2. The acts of insolvency alleged in the petition for adjudication were two in num-ber, but the second one is not now relied on and need not be considered in this appeal, and the act of insolvency relied on is that, in execution of a money-decree, obtained by one Jeebandas Agarwalla, in Suit No. 2349 of 1923, immoveable property of the respond-ent was attached on the 20th day of Febru-ary, 1924, and remained under attachment, at the date of the presentation of the peti-tion, namely, the 26th April, 1925.3. There is no doubt that the attachment of the 20th February, 1924, was an available act of insolvency, had the petition been presented within three months of the 20th ...
In Re: Reference Under Section 113 Read with Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal906
Walmsley, J.1. The circumstances which have given rise to this reference are as follows. In an execution case at Habiganj, the next friend of a minor decree-bolder was directed to furnish security under order 32, rule 6 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code before receiving certain money on behalf of the minor. Ha filed a security bond, and then a question arose as to whether the bond was to be stamped under the Court Fees Act, or under the Stamp Act. The learned Munsiff found that there were two conflicting decisions on the point viz., the case of Dwarkanath Dey v. Sailaja Kanta Mullik [1916] 21 C.W.N. 1150 and that of Sarbo Musulmani v. Safar Mandal 1913 Cal. 269, and ha referred the question to this Court under She provisions of Order 46, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. A Division Bench finding the two decisions to be directly opposed to one another has referred for the decision of a Full Bench the question whether a security bond executed under the order of the Court passed under O...
Kumar Birendra Nath Roy Bahadur Vs. Anadi Prasanna Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.416
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff's case shortly stated was this: that originally there was a jote, in the name of one Ram Lochan Chatterjee bearing a rental of Rs. 40 that the jote was subsequently sub-divided into 3 jotes, one bearing a rental of Rs. 20 representing an 8-annas share of which Satish Chandra Dutta was the tenant; the other jote of a 4-annas share was held by Saroda Nath Dutta at a rental of Rs. 10 and the other jote of 4-annas share bearing a rental of Rs. 10 was held by the predecessor of the present defendant Anadi Prasanna Dutta. The defence of the defendant was that the plaintiff was not the only owner of the land for which this suit for rent had been brought but that the defendant was the owner of the land as zemindar. He further pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.2. Now, it appears that the Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff and o...
NabIn Chandra Dhar and ors. Vs. Abdul Gofur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal596,91Ind.Cas.436
Babington Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted on the 29th November 1912. The plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of a contract and other reliefs. The essential facts are stated in the former judgment of this Court dated the 12th April 1918. The only point that now arises is the amount of damages which should be granted to the plaintiff, since he cannot obtain a decree for specific, performance of the contract. The Munsif assessed the damages at the sum of Rs. 2,873 odd. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has held that the Munsif could not grant a decree for a sum exceeding Rs. 1000, the amount which was the limit of the Munsif s pecuniary jurisdiction. He accordingly reduced the decretal amount to this sum.2. The main contention of the appellant is that since a Munsif in awarding mesne profits can award an amount in excess of his pecuniary jurisdiction there is no reason why he should not also grant a larger sum when assessing damages for...
Chaudhury Upendranandan Das Mahapatra and anr. Vs. Umai Set and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.702
1. The appellants are the proprietors of the estate bearing Touzi No. 598 in. the Midnapore District. Their property including this estate came under the management of the Court of Wards in 1905 and at their instance a Record of Eights was prepared which was finally published in 1911. The plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of a holding of which, according to their case, the proprietors of estates Nos. 597 and 598 are the superior landlords in equal undivided shares. In the Record of Rights of 1911, the plaintiffs' holding was recorded as appertaining to estate No. 598 only. The appellants then applied under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent of this and other holdings. The application in respect of each holding was numbered as a separate suit and these suits were heard together by the Revenue Officer. At the trial before him the first of the issues which were framed was : 'Does Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operate as a bar to th...
John Batt and Co. (London), Ltd. Vs. Kanoolal and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal938,95Ind.Cas.21
1. This case raises the question whether an agreement to submit differences to arbitration under Section 4 (b) of the Arbitration Act (IV of 1899) must be signed by both parties to the submission, or by their agent or agents duly authorised in that behalf.2. By Section 4 (b) it is provided that 'submission' means 'a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not.'3. The question has arisen in this way: On the 30th November 1916 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants a letter in these terms: Messrs. Kanoolal and Co. Calcutta.Dear Sirs, Please favour us with information about your firm and indicate the contemplated transactions. We are only open for business on a large scale, and each party acting as principals. We ship the articles specified by you and many others, for example, Copper, Y-Metal, German silver, Aluminium, Building materials, Machinery, Cement, Sugar, etc. Are you interested in any of these? If our sel...
Abdul Wahed Khan and anr. Vs. Srimati Tamijannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal679,92Ind.Cas.905
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for rents for the years 1324 to 1327. In para. 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated amongst other matters this 'out of the said purchased niskar property plaintiffs also having purchased some jote right lands no rents were claimed amongst the co-sharers and the rent due to each co-sharer used to be set-off, but the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with other defendants disregarded the said arrangement and instituted Title Suit No. 2062 of 1919 in the Munsifs First Court Sadar on the claim of getting mesne profits and khas possession with regard to some other jotes by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and obtained decree with mesne profits from 1324 A.S.' Now the defence of the defendants was substantially the same as alleged by the plaintiffs that there was an arrangement between the co-sharers by which instead of paying rent to each other the rent due to each other was to be set-off. But the written stateme...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »