Kolkata Court August 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.
Amantulla Mia and anr. Vs. Chhattoo Ram Muchi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal817
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this Rule has arisen are these; The plaintiffs who are the petitioners and at whose instance the Rule has been issued brought a suit against the opposite party-defendants in the Court of the Munsif at Siliguri. The defendants raised the objection that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Kalimpong Court and, therefore, the matter was not triable by the Munsif at Siliguri. Evidence was ordered to be produced to decide this question of jurisdiction. On the day fixed for the hearing the defendants challenged the plaintiffs to make a special oath on the Koran agreeing that if the plaintiffs swore on the Koran that the transaction did not take place at Kalimpong they would be bound by the plaintiff's statement. The plaintiffs refused to make the special oath and on this the Court proceeded to order that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiffs to be presented before the Munsif at Kalimpong. His reasons for this order...
Hiralal Shaha and anr. and Vs. Ramanath Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.647
Cuming, J.1. This Rule arises on the following facts: Two plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a Money Suit No. 218 of 1923 against two defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is the defendant No. 2 who is the applicant in the present application. This suit was for the price of the goods supplied with interest.2. The first Court dismissed the suit as against defendant No. 2 holding that he was a servant and not a partner of defendant No. 1. He decreed the suit against defendant No. 1 with full costs and interest at 12 per cent, per annum. On appeal to the District Court the learned Subordinate Judge modified the decree of the first Court and decreed the suit as against defendant No. 2 as well as defendant No. 1 for the amount claimed with costs in both Courts. This decree is a decree for interest at the rate of 24 per cent, as claimed by the plaintiffs.3. Defendant No. 2 has moved this Court in revision and this Rule has been granted. The points raised by him were 1st that the Court in coming to the...
(Rani) Prayag Kumari Debi and ors. Vs. Siva Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1
N.R. Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the Jheria Raj, an impartible estate on declaration of the plaintiff's right by inheritance thereto.2. The last male owner was Raja Durga Prasad Singh and the 3 plaintiffs are his widows. Raja Durga Prasad was the grandson of Raja Udit, and the defendant Was the grandson of Nanda Kishore. Raja Udit, Nanda Kishore, and Brojo Lal were the sons of Raja Sangram.3. The plaintiff's ease, shortly stated, was that Nanda Kishore and Brojo Lal (and their branches) were entirely separate in food, worship and estate from their elder brother, Raja Udit and his successors, that the Jheria estate thus being the separate estate of Raja Durga Prosad, the plaintiffs were (or the Plaintiff No. 1 as the senior widow was) entitled to it, and all the plaintiffs were entitled to the self-acquisitions of their husband, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud and conspiracy, and that certain documents bantannamas and an am-m...
Ramnath Karmakar Vs. Hiralal Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal755
Cuming, J.1. This Rule arises on the following facts: Two plaintiffs, Nos. 1 and, 2 instituted a Money Suit No. 218 of 1923 against two defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is the Defendant No. 2 who is the applicant in the present application. This suit was for the price of the goods supplied, with interest. The first Court dismissed the suit as against Defendant No. 2 holding that he was a servant and not a partner of Defendant No. 1. He decreed the suit against Defendant No. 1, with full costs and interest at 12 per cent. per annum. On appeal to the District Court the learned Subordinate Judge modified the decree of the first Court and decreed the suit as against the Defendant No. 2 as well as Defendant No. 1 for the amount claimed with costs in both Courts. This decree is a decree for interest at the rate of 24 per cent. as claimed by the plaintiffs.2. Defendant No. 2 has moved this Court in revision and this Rule has been granted. The points raised by him were first that the Court in comin...
Kusum Kumari Lodh and ors. Vs. Kutiswar Barai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal829
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioners in this Rule are transferees from certain persons who purchased at a sale in execution of a decree against one Tarini and his two minor nephews, certain properties belonging to the said judgment-debtors. The sale took place on the 21st June 1922. In August 1922, Tarini applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. for setting the sale aside. That application was dismissed for default on the 11th November 1922, and thereafter the sale was confirmed on the 18th November 1912. On the 15th February 1924 the minors through their grand-uncle one Gayali Barui, made a further application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The Munsif dismissed the application, but on an appeal being preferred to the Subordinate Judge, the sale has been set aside.2. The petitioners have obtained this Rule to show cause why the sale in so far as the share of Tarini is concerned should not be upheld. The first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is...
Bhabatarini Devi Vs. Roy Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.1026
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. These two appeals arise from two rent suits. The suits relate to two successive periods, one from Baisakh 1319 to Pous 1322, and the other from Magh 1322 to the end of 1325. The annual rent is Rs. 345, so with the addition of a claim for damages at the rate of 25 per centum the claim in each suit is well above Rs. 1,000.2. The defendant-appellant's case is that the plaintiff-landlord has dispossessed them from three of the plots comprised in the tenancy and leased those three plots to another party and on that account they say that they are entitled to a suspension of rent. As to the truth of their allegation, they refer to the decision in a previous suit for rent in respect of the same tenancy. That suit was for a shorter period and the amount claimed was less than Rs. 1,000 and the suit was tried and determined by a Munsif whose pecuniary jurisdiction did not go beyond Rs. 1,000. That officer, therefore, would not have been competent to try these two suits and on ...
Lalit Mohan Seal Vs. Brojendra Nath Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.45
Page, J.1. In this suit the Court is asked to construe certain documents relating to the property of Gopal Chandra Seal, who died on the 14th September 1911. [After deciding the validity of certain othernstruments his Lordship continued:]2. On the 20th August 1910 Gopal Chandra Seal made a Will, which was duly admitted to Probate. Under the Will the testator gave and bequeathed:all my real and personal estates whatsoever and wheresoever situate to my wife Sreemati Badam Moni Dasi upon trust for the maintenance of herself and for the expenses of worship of my family idols Sree Sree Madan Mohan Jew, Sree Sree Badha Eanee Jew, Sree Sree Sreedhur Jew, Sree Sree Luckhy Thakur Ranee Jew. I do hereby nominate and appoint my wife Sreemati Badarii Moni Dasi to be the sole executrix and trustee of this my last Will and testament and shebait of my said idol.I have by a deed of conveyance in favour of my son Lalit Mohan Seal provided that he will receive the rents and profits of the half part or s...
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Sader Saik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal584,91Ind.Cas.701
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: Sadir Sheikh was tried upon a charge under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mymensihgh: he was convicted and sentenced to under go three years' rigorous imprisonment. He preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence on the, ground that the Trying Judge had not complied with the provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C.2. The case was fixed for fresh trial on October 29th. On that date no witnesses were present, and the heating was adjourned to next day. Again there were no witnesses present. The learned Judge then refused to grant any further adjournment: he then called upon the accused to plead, and empanelled a Jury: he then directed the Public Prosecutor to open the case, and the latter did so under protest, and informed the Court that he had no witnesses present to support the case for the prosecution. Thereupon the learne...
Jogesh Chandra Misra Vs. Ramani Kanta Mahinta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal530,91Ind.Cas.839
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the decree passed by the Additional District Judge of Sylhet should not be set aside and such other order made by this Court as to this Court may seem fit arid proper. The petitioner in this Rule was the plaintiff in a suit which had been instituted against the defendant opposite party for recovery of four sums of money and amount of Rs. 50 due on account of a loan, a sum of Rs. 72 due for boarding charges and a sum of Rs. 40 due on account of lodging charges and a sum of Rs. 138 due on account of compensation. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit in full. On an appeal being preferred by the defendant the learned Additional District Judge upheld the decree of the Court of first instance, only in respect of the sum of Rs. 50 alleged to have been due on account of loan. With regard to the other three items of money the amounts were disallowed by the learned Judge, the boarding and lodging charges on the ground ...
Rogers Pyatt Shellac Co. Vs. John King and Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal564,95Ind.Cas.1042
1. This, suit raises an issue of law of some nicety relating to the measure of damages in tort.2. On the 18th August 1921 the plaintiffs were given a Bill of Lading for 602 bags of shellac shipped by them on the SS. 'City of Agra' then lying in the Port of Calcutta, and bound for Philadelphia. On the same day a fire broke out in the hold in which the shellac was stowed owing to the negligence of the defendants' servants in the course of executing certain repairs to the ship. The result of the fire was that' 602 bags of the plaintiffs' shellac were damaged. Subsequently the shellac was sold, at Calcutta and the net proceeds of the sale amounted to Rs. 97,946. On the 26th August 1921 the SS. 'City of Agra' sailed from Calcutta, and completed the discharge of her cargo at Philadelphia on the 22nd October 1921. On or about the time when the 'vessel discharged her cargo it was stated that the market price of the shellac at Philadelphia was higher than the market price of the shellac in Calc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »