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.
Bidyadhar Bachar and ors. Vs. Manindra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1076
ORDERSuhrawardy and Duval, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the plaintiff-appellants in the Court of the Munsif for recovery of possession of certain lands with mesne profits. An order was passed against the plaintiff under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and the suits were instituted on 12th September 1911, for declaration of title. On the 20th February 1914, the suits were decreed. The appeals to the lower Appellate Court were dismissed on 12th June 1915. There were second appeals to this Court by the defendant, which were also discussed on the 21st August 1913. In the meantime, i.e., on 2nd December 1915, plaintiff book possession of the decreed lands and after the appeal do this Court was disposed of, on the 27th February 1919, applied to the Court of the Munsif which had passed the decree to ascertain mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit to the data of delivery of possession and to pass a decree for such amount as may be found du...
Chandra Kumar Guha Vs. Elahi Buksha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.616
1. This appeal arises on of a suit for rent. The plaintiff brought a suit against 14 defendants claiming from them rent with interest on the arrears at the rate of 75 per cent, per annum. The plaintiff's case is that the tenancy was created in favour of two persons, Amanuddin and Mona Gazi who executed a kabuliyat and that the defendants had succeeded to the interest of these two persons by inheritance and purchase. One of the defendants died before the institution of the suit and the heirs of this defendant were not properly summoned. The suit was decreed in full against the remaining defendants by the Court of first instance. Against this decree an appeal was preferred by four of the defendants, the three sons and the widow of Mona Gazi. The appeal was decreed and the lower Appellate Court decided that the stipulation for payment of interest at 75 per cent, with damages and various other abwabs must beheld to be hard and penal and that the plaintiff was entitled to get damages at 12 ...
Makhan Mapa Vs. Monindra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1260
1. This Rule has been issued on two grounds; first, why the case should not be transferred from the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour, to the of some other competent Magistrate, and secondly, why the case in which the petitioner is the complainant should not be postponed pending the hearing of the case in which the petitioner is the accused.2. With regard to the first ground, we have gone through all the papers in connexion with this litigation, which has been hanging for a long time mainly on account of the conduct of the petitioner and we do not think, that any ground has been made out for our interference on that ground. The allegations made against; the trying Magistrate have all bean denied; and there is one fact which makes it undesirable that the case should be transferred from the file of the Sub' Divisional Officer. An application was made previously to this Court for the transfer of the case in which, the petitioner the accused from the file of the Sub-Divis...
Jnanendra Nath Biswas and anr. Vs. Jogendra Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal772,91Ind.Cas.191
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is fan appeal by, the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Judge of 24-Perganas reversing those of the Munsif, Second Court of Basirhat.2. The suit was one for recovery of possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding on the ground that the original raiyats, defendants Nos. 6 to 8, had transferred the entire jote to defendants Nos. 1 to 5 by a kobala dated the 8th May 1906. The kobala was in favour of the defendant No. 1 alone. The Munsif made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Additional District Judge has reversed the decree on the ground of limitation. His view was that limitation began to run from the date of the execution of the kobala and as the suit5 was brought more than 12 years after that date it was barred by limitation, on the authority of the cases of Probhati Dasi v. Taibaturinessa Choudhurani 20 Ind. Cas. 664 : 17 C.W.N. 1088 : 19 C.L.J. and Panchkari Chattapadhya v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh...
ThakurdIn Tewari Vs. Mahammad Ibrahim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.178
1. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover arrears of rent for the years 1324, 1325 and part of 1326 B.S. claiming increase of rent on the ground of increase in area. The first Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to increase of rent though not to the full amount claimed. On appeal it was held that the Suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had made an application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act claiming additional rent for excess area and that application was dismissed for non-prosecution. Having regard to the recent Full Bench decision in the case of Becharam Choudhuri v. Puran Chandra Chatterji 88 Ind. Cas. 637 : 41 C.L.J. 456 : 29 C.W.N. 755 : (1925) A.I.R. (C.) 845, there can be no doubt that the lower Appellate Court is right so far as it decides that the claim for additional rent for excess area cannot be maintained in this suit. But it is contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no reason why the plaintiff should...
Kissen Gopal Bogree Vs. L.J. Bavin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.735
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Kissen Gopal Bogree against the judgment of my, learned brother Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose delivered on the 25th of Augus 1924.2. The summons was in an unusual form. It was taken out by the liquidator of the Eastern Machinery and Engineering Co., Ltd., which is in liquidation, and it was addressed to Kissen Gopal Bogree : and, the application was for a direction whether a sum of Rs. 1,800-2-0 as stated in the petition in support of the application should be paid to L. G. Bavin the liquidator or to Kissen Gopal Bogree.3. The petition was presented by L.J. Bavin the liquidator of the Company and was countersigned on behalf of Messrs. Kilburn and Co.4. It appears that the Eastern Machinery and Engineering Co. Ltd., had sold a lathe to the Diamond Drill Syndicate Ltd., through Messrs. Kilburn and Co. and the price of the lathe was Rs. 2,000-2-0 : a sum of Rs. 200 was to be deducted for a reason which it is not necessary for me to mention and Mess...
Kisen Gopal Bogree Vs. L.J. Bavin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal447
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In the early part of 1923 the Eastern Machinery and Engin. Co., Ltd. sold and delivered to Messrs. Kilburn & Co. a lathe, the price of which was Rs. 2,000-2-0. An allowance of Rs. 200 was claimed by Messrs. Kilburn & Co. which claim was admitted. There remained therefore due and owing to the Company by and from Messrs. Kilburn & Co. a sum of Rs. 1,800-2-0. One Kissen Gopal Bogree claims to be entitled to the same by virtue of an assignment alleged to have been made by the Company on the 17th May 1923. The liquidator submits that if an assignment was made it was a fraudulent preference on the part of the Company and therefore invalid; and secondly, that the assignment, such as it is, does not operate in law as a valid assignment. The assignment which is on the back of the bill against Messrs. Kilburn & Co., is in these terms: 'Messrs. Kilburn & Co., kindly remit to Babu Kissen Gopal Bogree, who will collect on our behalf for and on behalf of the Eastern Machinery and En...
Rahimuddi Meaji Vs. Srimati Amina Bibi Alias Kali Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal662,94Ind.Cas.920
Chakravarti, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by him for ejectment of an under-raiyat after service of a notice under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and after the expiry of a lease executed by the under-raiyat. The under-raiyati consisted of a plot of homestead land and also of some nal land and a tank as has been found by the Subordinate Judge. The defence of the defendant was that he was a settled raiyati of the village of lands which he held under a different landlord. Therefore, he contended that under the provisions of Section 182 of the Bengal Tenancy Act he could not be ejected from the lands in suit so far as they form part of his homestead. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff, but on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has remanded this case to the Court of first instance for the determination of the question as to what are the precise limits of the homestead in the view that the defendant is protected from eje...
Nitai Pada Das and ors. Vs. Sarat Kumari Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal96
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, reversing a decision of the Additional Munsif of Chuadanga.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to eject the defendants from certain: homestead lands. It has been found that the defendants are raiyats of the village and that they held their homestead otherwise than as a part of their holding as raiyats. The whole of the homestead is held, under persons who are themselves raiyats and, consequently the position of the defendants as regards the homestead is that they are under-raiyats. The first Court dismissed the suit but the second Court has decreed it for the reason stated in the judgment of that Court.3. The facts of this case are identical with the facts in the case of Krishna Kanta Ghose v. Jadu Kasya [1915] 19 C.W.N. 914. It was there held that according to the provisions of Section 182 the provisions regulating the homestead, would be the provisions which regulate the raiyati....
In Re: Bhagat Bros. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal809
C.C. Ghosh, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the Khardah Company, Limited, for an order that the appointment of A.F.P. Allan as a joint liquidator with Mr. S.K. Day of the Company known as Bhagat Brothers, Limited, at the same remuneration as the said Mr. S.K. Day is receiving may be confirmed and ratified by this Court with retrospective effect from the 4th July 1921.2. The facts shortly stated are as follows: By an extraordinary resolution passed at a meeting of the shareholders of Bhagat Brothers, Limited, held on the 6th June 1911, it was resolved that the said Company be wound up voluntarily and that Mr. S.K. Day, Incorporated Accountant be appointed liquidator. Mr. Day convened a meeting of the creditors of the said Company under the provisions of Section 209 of the Indian Companies Act and it was held on the 4th July 1921 when the following resolution was unanimously passed-''That this meeting is of opinion that Mr. Allan of Messrs. Viney and Thurston be appointed and fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »