Kolkata Court January 1926 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.
Dinu Ghose and ors. Vs. Kati Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.545
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was one for contribution. The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendants held a jote jointly. At the instance of the landlord a certificate was issued and the jote was sold for arrears of rent. The plaintiff paid the* amount and had the sale set aside. Thereafter the present suit, was brought by the plaintiff for contribution against the defendants Nos. 1 to 6. The defendants Nos, 5 and 6 settled this case against them with the plaintiff; and the defendaiit No. 4's contention was that he had paid, his share of rent to the plaintiff. He died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court and no substitution has been made-in his place. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who are now the appellants before us Contend that they had paid their quota of the rent to the landlord before the certificate was-issued. The Courts below have granted' a decree to the plaintiff and the only ground taken before us on behalf of the: defendants N...
Trailakyanath Char Vs. Chintamoney Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal813,95Ind.Cas.426
Suhrawardy, J.1. The plaintiff's case is that his father purchased the property in suit out of his own funds and was in possession thereof since the date of purchase in Sraban 1297 and re-purchase in Falgoon 1309. The suit is for recovery of possession of the lands in suit on the strength of plaintiff's title as purchaser and also on his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The principal defendant (defendant No. 1) contended in his defence that the properties were the joint properties of the plaintiff's father Uday Char and his brother Dina Bandhu Char, that the two brothers were joint in mess and property and that the disputed properties were acquired with their joint fund in the plaintiff's father's name. The contesting defendant has now purchased the property under a mortgage decree against Dina Bandhu Char and he contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to the entire 16 annas of the property of the suit. There is no dispute with' regards to the 8 annas share of th...
National Coal Co., Ltd. Vs. Kshitish Bose and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal818,95Ind.Cas.409
Buckland, J.1. This is an application for execution against a surety who executed a bond in favour of the Registrar in pursuance of an order giving leave to the defendant to defend a suit under Order XXXVII of the C. P. C. upon furnishing security.3. When the suit came to trial a consent decree was made and the terms of the-consent decree' provided for the payment of the amount decreed by instalments. The surety now claims to have been thereby discharged. So far as I am aware this point has never so far come before this Court but in addition to earlier cases I have been referred to Tatum v. Evans (1886) 54 L. T, 386,. This case is very much to the point and it seems to me that the applicant must fail unless he can show that the surety either consented to the order or that he satisfied it or waived any rights that he might have. As to this there is a statement in the affidavit of Batya Charan Srimani that the surety caused payment of two instalments to be made to the decree-holder on th...
Kalisadhan Mitra, Minor, and anr. Vs. Prafulla Chandra Mittra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1061,95Ind.Cas.848
Walmsley, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is as to the effect of a declaration made by an employee of the Eastern Bengal State Railway regarding the disposal of the sum standing to his credit in the Railway Provident Fund on his death.2. The facts are as follows:---Dwarka Nath Mitter was a widower without children in 1902, and when he was called upon under the Rules of the Fund to make a declaration as to the payment of the money deposited by him on his death, he named his brother Prafulla Chandra Mitter. He married a second wife subsequently, and had two sons and two daughters by her, but he did not change his declaration. He died in 1922. Then the widow applied for a certificate under Act VII of 1899, and Prafulla opposed the application. Later he applied for Letters of Administration on the footing that the declaration is a Will. The widow, and, after her death, the sons opposed this application, but the learned Judge has held that the declaration is a Will, and has granted ...
Panchubala Debi Vs. Jotindra Nath Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal993
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Chakravarti and raises an interesting point of law. The facts of the case are briefly these: The plaintiff granted to one Abinash Chandra Banerjee a permanent lease of a certain property. At the time of the execution of the document an ekrarnama was executed which provided that the grantee's daughter and daughter's sons should not be entitled to succeed as heirs.2. The grantee died sometime, ago and was succeeded by his widow. She died in 1919 and the grantee's daughter then remained on in possession.3. The grantor now seeks to eject her on the ground that under the terms of the patta and ekrarnama she is not entitled to inherit the property.4. This contention found favour with the trial Court and both the Courts on appeal.5. The defendant in third appeal has contended that the clause in the ekrarnama which is read as part of the lease excluding the daughters and daughters' son of the grante...
Bijoy Gopal Ghosh Vs. Iswar Chandra Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.659
1. The petitioners before us are two in number, and the allegation against them is that, on or about the 11th November, 1924, they committed offences under Sections 427, 380 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 19th December, 1924, the Magistrate directed that a summons should issue on them calling upon them to answer a charge under Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the Magistrate held an enquiry under On. XVIII of the Cr. P.C. and eventually discharged the petitioners, on the 31st March, 1925, under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. Against the said order of discharge the complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge of 24-Pargannas, and on the 10th July, 1925, the petitioners were directed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge to be committed to the Court of Session on the following charges, i.e., the petitioner, Ghulam Mustaia, under Sections 427, 380 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner, Bijoy Gopal Ghosh, under Section 427, 380 and 436 of the Indian Pena...
Sishir Kumar Mitter Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal786,96Ind.Cas.649
1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why the orders, dated the 5th and the 26th November, 1925, passed by the Municipal Magistrate, should not be set aside and the case, instituted against the petitioner allowed to be withdrawn.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: In or about the month of June, 1925, the Corporation of Calcutta prosecuted the petitioner, Sishir Kumar Mitter under Sections 488-386(1a) of the present Calcutta Municipal Act for using premises No. 35-1, Balligunge Circular Road, for manufacturing surkhi without a license for 1924-25. The case came on for hearing on the 26th June, 1925, when the examination of Dr. R.R. Bhuttacharya, Sanitary Inspector on behalf of the Corporation was proceeded with. After Dr. Bhuttacharya had been partially cross-examined, the case was adjourned to the 9th July for further hearing. On the last mentioned date D...
Victor Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal648
Page, J.1. On the 6th September 1925, at 10-30 in the forenoon, the appellant was accosted by a police officer in Lindsay Street, Calcutta. He was unable to satisfy the police that he was doing any work, or to provide them with the address of any place where he was residing. The only information which he gave to the police to account for his presence in Lindsay Street on that morning was that two or three days previously he had come to Calcutta from Tatanagar. He was straightway taken to the thana, hauled before a Magistrate, remanded pending enquiries, and on the 5th October 1925, under Sections 109 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 100 with one surety for Rs. 100 to be of good behaviour for one year and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year or until the security was furnished. The question which falls for determination is whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the order which was passed.2. Under Section 109 of the Crim...
Altap Ali Vs. Jamsur Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal638
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The question before me arises out of an application for review of a decision of this Court dismissing a second appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Civil P.O. The suit out of which the appeal arose was one for partition and the plaint and the memorandum of appeal bore a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 15 as required by Article 17(vi) of Sch. II of the Court Fees Act as amended by the Bengal Act of 1922. The application was filed with a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 2, while the Stamp Reporter was of opinion that it should bear a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 15 under the provisions of Article 4 of Sch. I of the Act, as the application was presented after the 90th day from the decision of this Court. The Taxing Officer referred the question under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act and the Chief Justice has appointed me for deciding the matter.2. I heard the arguments of the learned vakil for the petitioners as well as of the Government Pleader on both sides of the question. The contention on be...
Ram Dan Damani Vs. Hari Das Damini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1048,95Ind.Cas.933
Chotzner, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order purporting to have been made under Section 517, Cr. P.C., directing certain tins of ghee which were found in the possession of the petitioner and which were ordered by the learned Magistrate to be made over to the opposite party should not be set aside.2. It appears from the petition that the opposite party who was the complainant in the case lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, charging him with having cheated him in respect of 26 tins of ghee. On search warrant being issued, the ghee was found in the petitioner's shop. The defence put forward by the petitioner was in these terms: 'I had dealings with the complainant and whenever I took any goods I paid cash for them. I never took so many as 26 tins. The goods recovered by the Police were bought from the complainant by me. These were bought at different times during th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »