Kolkata Court July 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.
Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. Vs. E.S. Luard
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal152,92Ind.Cas.1008
Gregory, J.1. This is a petition under Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) for the revocation of a patent granted to the respondent on the 21st March 1922, by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta. At the request of the parties this case has been tried with the aid of an Assessor, Mr. A.H. Thackwell, Works Manager, East Indian Railways, Carriage and Wagon Workshops, Lilooah, and I desire to acknowledge his assistance to' me. The petitioner is the Vacuum Brake Co , Ltd,, who carry on business in the manufacture and sale of Vacuum Brake fittings for Railway locomotives and rolling stock. The respondent is an Engineer and is a Director of the Consolidated Brake and Engineering Co , Ltd., manufacturers of Vacuum Brakes. The petitioner for many years, in the business of the Company, imported from the factory in England and sold in, British India, Vacuum Brake Cylinders described as having the valve chamber mounted in the inner side of the piston according to 2 d...
Khemkarandas Khemka Vs. Huribux Fatehpunia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1215
1. This is an appeal against an order of adjudication passed on the 17th March 1925 at the instance of a creditor.2. A preliminary point has been taken by the creditor on the appeal that; the appeal cannot proceed as the Official Assignee has neither been made a party to the appeal nor served with notice of the appeal. We wore referred in support of this to the case of In re. Webber v. Ex parts Webber (1890) 24 Q B.D. 313. The head-note runs as follows: 'Notice of an appeal against a receiving order, whether to a Division Court in Bankruptcy or to the Court of appeal must in every case, whether proceedings under the order have or have not been stayed, be served on the Official Receiver within the time limited by the rules for service on the petitioning creditor.' In that case in the Division Court the learned Judges held that the preliminary objection taken against the appeal on the ground of non-service of notice on the Official Receiver must prevail. Against that order an appeal was ...
Sailabala Deb and ors. Vs. Baikuntha Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal486
B.B.Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court of Sylhet, reversing those of the Munsif, Second Court of Maulvi Bazar.2. The suit was for recovery of certain plots of land on the 'allegation that the plaintiffs were the reversionary heirs of one Baidyanath. Baidyanath was the son of one of three brothers, Jibhram, Mohouram and Kali Charn. Baidyanath was the son of Kali Charan. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Jithram and Mohouram. Baidyanath died leaving a widow, Chandramoni, and an unmarried daughter, Sukhomoni. Chandramoni died on the 21st July 1908. She had during her lifetime executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter, Sukhomoni and her husband Brindaban of 12 annnas share of her husband's estate on the occasion of the marriage of Sukhomoni. Afterwards, Chandramoni and Sukhomoni jointly sold certain properties to the Defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs sued for the recovery of all those properties on the allegation that ...
(Sheikh) Khairat Ali and ors. Vs. Wahed Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1928Cal241a
1. It appears from a perusal of the record that warrant has been issued against the petitioners by the trial Court. The petitioners without appearing before the trial Court filed a petition of motion before the Sessions Judge and prayed for an order for stay of further proceedings. That application having been dismissed1 they moved this Court on 25th May last but have not obeyed the summons issued in the meantime by the Magistrate for their appearance on 27th May 1925. We are told, and it is not denied, that they have not yet entered appearance. As they are in contempt we are not prepared to hear this rule. Rule accordingly discharged....
E.J. Judah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.289
Suhrawardy, J.1. The three accused in this case have been convicted under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 75 each or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The case for the prosecution is that the accused No. 1 gave a kettle for repairs to the complainant who has an electric repair-shop at 7/1, Middleton Street, 11 or 12 days before the occurrence (as stated by the complainant) or on the 28th March as stated by the accused in the petition filed in this Court. The complainant promised to finish the repairs within 6 or 7 days. On the 18th April the accused went to the shop and demanded return of the kettle. The complainant refused to part with it as the repairs were not complete and ultimately agreed to return it to the accused if he was paid Rs. 5 for the repairs already done I may mention here that the amount fixed for the repair of the kettle was Rs. 6. The accused refused to pay the amount, t...
W. and T. Avery, Ld. Vs. Kessoram Podder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1001
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the 'judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chotzner.2. It is necessary for me to state, certain facts:' The appellants were in occupation of one room on the ground floor of premises No. 1, Hastings Street, as monthly tenants from the end of 1911 or the beginning of 1912. The rental was Rs. 150 per month. That rental remained the same until' the year 1919. In 1911 the landlords were the Mullicks. In 1919 Messrs. Solomon & Co., took a lease from the Mullicks of the pre-raises No. 1, Hastings Street, for a term of 20 years. The appellants continued to be tenants under Messrs. Solomon & Co.3. On the 5th of September 1919, an agree merit was made between the appellants and Messrs. Solomon & Co., to pay Rs. 500 rent per month; there were negotiations for a lease, which were never brought to completion. In December of the same year-the plaintiff, Kessoram Poddar, bought the lease from Messrs. Solomon & Co., and the pr...
Dhana Mohammed and anr. Vs. Nastulla Molla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.948
1. The plaintiffs sued the defendants on an alleged mortgage; The suit was contested on the ground that the mortgage-bond was not duly attested and that no consideration passed and that it was merely a benami transaction. The first Court held in favour of the plaintiffs' on the question, of attestation -but dis missed the suit on the ground that the mortgage was a benami transaction. The lower Appellate Court has held that the bond was not properly attested but has disbelieved the defendants' case that the;: transaction was benami and has held that the consideration money: was paid; He; has granted the plaintiffs a decree with a direction that if the defendants do not deposit the decretal dues within three months they will be absolutely debarred from all rights to redeem the property.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that after finding that, the bond was not properly attested the lower Appellate Court should not have held that there was a valid mortgage. This decision is b...
E.J. Judah and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal464
Suhrawardy, J.1. The three accused in this case have been convicted under Section 380, I.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 75 each, or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The case for the prosecution is that the Accused No. 1 gave a kettle for repairs to the complainant who has an electric repair shop at 7/1, Middleton Street, 11 or 12 days before the occurrence (as stated by the complainant), or on the 28th March, as stated by the accused in the petition filed in this Court. The complainant promised to finish the repairs within six or seven days. On the 18th April the accused went to the shop and demanded return of the kettle. The complainant refused to part with it as the repairs were not complete and ultimately agreed to return it to the accused if he was paid Rs. 5 for the repairs already done. I may mention here that the amount fixed for the repair of the kettle was Rs. 6. The accused refused to pay the amount, t...
Nepaldas Mukherjee Vs. Probhas Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.499
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 6 from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Court of Faridpur reversing a decision of the Munsif of the Third Court of Bhanga. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to and for possession of a certain plot of niskar land, plot No. 137 of the cadastral survey which was in estate No. 1187. Some question was raised in the Courts below as to whether the property in dispute was niskar or mal land of the estate but it has been found that the property is niskar and this is not questioned in second appeal. The plots originally belonged to one Raghumani Banerji. He died leaving a daughter Dakhina who had a son Purno. Purno died leaving him surviving three sons who are the plaintiffs in the present suit. Their case was that Dakhina succeeded to the property on the death of Raghumani and that on Dakhina's death the property passed to her son Purno and on his death to his sons, the present plaintiffs. Their case was ...
Chundy Churn Law Vs. Balaram Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.763
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff--the landlord--against a judgment of the Special Judge of Tipperah, dated the 21st of March 1922. This appeal arises out of an application, made by the landlord under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a settlement of fair and equitable rent and also for additional rent for additional area held by the raiyats. The Only question which is now before us relates to the question as to additional rent for additional area claimed by the plaintiff.2. It appears that the tenants, the defendants, held under a written and registered kabuliyat. The kabuliyat mentions the area for which the rent was fixed. The landlord after the Record of Rights had been prepared contended that the area now found was more than the area for which the defendants--the raiyats--were paying rent. The defence of the defendants was a total denial of the fact that the kabuliyat was executed after any measurement at all. They further contended that the standard of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »