Kolkata Court November 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.
Kasim Ali Prodhanya and ors. Vs. K.S. Bonnerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal493,101Ind.Cas.347
Duval, J.1. Appeal No. 714 of 1922 : This is an appeal by landlords against the order of the Special Judge refusing to settle enhanced rents in respect of 7 khatians in a Settlement proceeding on the ground that the tenants have produced dakhilas of a uniform rate of rent for over twenty years which gives them the presumption that their rent is fixed - a presumption which is not rebutted by any evidence which the plaintiffs have been able to adduce. There are 185 tenants respondents in the appeal but in respect of Khatians Nos. 5, 20, 21, 36, 38, 47, 49, 53, 61, 62, 63 and 78 some or all of the tenants had died pending these proceedings and no substitution had been made. The appeals necessarily stand dismissed as against those respondents.2. As to the other cases the evidence of the tenants is the production of dakhilas which have been accepted as genuine. The only evidence produced by the landlords is that jama wasil baki papers of over hundred years old had been put before the Court ...
Adhar Chandra Dey Vs. BipIn Chandra Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal373
Duval, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a certain piece of bhiti land. Their case was that they had purchased the nishkar right in the same and that one Behari and his father before him held the bhiti land in suit as a tenant-at-will under them. in 1918 Behari left the place and transferred his so called interest in the land to the other defendants. The defendants at first denied the plaintiffs' title but that denial was subsequently given up. But his main case was that Behari never abandoned the tenancy but had only given it to the present appellants in usufructuary mortgage and so plaintiffs cannot get khas possession. The Munsif found that the so called usufructuary mortgage was an out-and-out sale and that though, no doubt, Behari was not an agriculturist he held the land with no power of transfer and so decreed the suit. This judgment was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. Three points have been taken before us. Firstly, it is urged that as...
Surjya Kumar Singh Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal604,103Ind.Cas.655
1. In this case we are of opinion that on the pleadings the Small Cause Court Judge was entirely right in holding that a suit of this nature is not maintainable. If the plaintiff was aggrieved by any order of the Magistrate who tried the case in which the plaintiff gave evidence, his proper remedy was to move a superior Court. In no case was he, as the plaintiff, entitled to maintain a civil suit for recovery of the expenses alleged to have been incurred by him in obedience to a subpoena in a criminal case requiring him to give evidence.2. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. We assess the hearing fee at three gold mohurs....
J.D. Jones and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ranjit Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal682,103Ind.Cas.748
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion this appeal must be allowed.2. The question for decision is whether the security created by the deed, dated the 9jh day of September 1924, made between the Eureka Belting Works, Ltd., now in liquidation, and the company called J.D. Jones & Co., Ltd., is a 'floating charge' within the meaning of that expression which occurs in Section 109 of the Indian Companies Act.3. It may be as well to say at once that Section 109 MS a repetition of Section 93 of the English Companies Act of 1908; but, in repeating Section 93, the Indian Legislature has omitted to enact any equivalent for Sub-clause (c) of the English section, plainly enough for the reason that as there were no Bills of Sale Acts in India governing securities upon moveable properties given in the case of private individuals, it was not possbile to employ the same terms with reference to the Indian Companies Act. This is a matter of some importance as the omission of the clause which is found in the Engli...
Bhican Chand Charorla and ors. Vs. G. and M. Fogt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal227
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland whereby he refused to set aside an award of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows : On the 30th of April 1925 a contract was entered into between the appellant firm and the respondent firm whereby the appellant firm agreed to sell and the respondent firm agreed to buy 15,0031/2 maunds bales of Kishengunj jute, delivery to be given by August or September 1925. No delivery having been effected by the end of September 1925, the appellant firm asked on the 3rd October 1925 for an extension of time for delivery up to the 31st October 1925. The respondent firm refused to agree to the extension asked for, but they stated that they were prepared to allow an extension of time up to the 10th of October 1925. The appellant firm did not see their way to accept the extension of time up to the 10th of October 1925, but it appears that on the 5th of October 1925 the respondent firm express...
(Shiekh) Abdul and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal306
1. This Rule was issued by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Rankin and Mr. Justice Duval on three grounds : first, that the learned Magistrate should have acquitted the accused holding that the knowledge which was the main ingredient of an offence under Section 188 of the-Indian Penal Code was not brought home to the accused; secondly, that the learned Magistrate considered the merits and demerits of the prosecution and defence cases in a vague and general manner without considering the evidence of individual defence witnesses with reference to the accused for whom they deposed and the accused had been seriously prejudiced on account of this procedure The petitioners have not pressed the third ground on which this rule was issued.2. In disposing of the rule it is only necessary for me to deal with the first ground. Mr. Bose who appears for the petitioners has contended that it is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that notice has been duly promulgated. The prosecution must prov...
Official Assignee of Calcutta Vs. Ramratan Das Bagree and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal529
Rankin, C.J.1. The question in this case is whether the Official Assignee is entitled as against the firm of Ramratan Bagree to retain by way of commission to him under the Insolvency Rules of this Court a sum which appears to amount to some 62 Rupees.2. The insolvent, one Dwijendra Nath Sen, was adjudicated on the 9th of June 1925. Prior to the insolvency, namely, on the 15th of February 1924, and the 14th of January 1925 he had executed certain deeds of hypothecation over his stock-in-trade, book-debts and certain other assets, in favour of a firm which I shall refer to as Mathura Das. He had also on the 25th of march 1925 executed a deed of hypothecation over the same assets in favour of the present respondents-the firm of Ramratan Das Bagree. It appears that the Official Assignee took possession of the assets at a time when he had no notice of the respondent's claim to a security there over but that immediately thereafter the respondent firm objected to the Official Assignee procee...
Sheikh Abdul and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.830
1. This Rule was issued by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Rankin and Mr. Justice, Duval on three grounds, first, that the learned Magistrate should have acquitted the accused holding that the knowledge which was the main ingredient of an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was not brought home to the accused; secondly, that the learned Magistrate considered the merits and demerits of the prosecution and defence cases in a vague and general manner without considering the evidence of individual defence witnesses with reference to the accused for whom they deposed and the accused had been seriously prejudiced on account of this procedure. The petitioners have not pressed the third ground on which this Rule was issued.2. In disposing of the Rule it is only necessary for me to deal with the first ground. Mr. Bose who appears for the petitioners has contended that it is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that notice has been duly promulgated. The prosecution must pro...
Benodini Howladar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal480
1. This was a Rule granted by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Chakravarti and Mr. Justice Roy on the District Magistrate of Backergunj to show cause why the conviction of and the sentences passed on the petitioners under Section 494, and Section 494 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the grounds set forth in the petition.2. It would appear that Peary, Petitioner No. 2, has been convicted of bigamy in marrying one Benodini Howladar, Petitioner No. 1, on the ground that she had already been married to one Jogeswar Kirtonia who was still alive.3. The only ground which has been urged in support of this Rule is that the mother cannot make a gift of the bride to the bridegroom. It would appear that at the time when the first marriage took place the father of the bride for some reason or other was in jail and was unable to be present and personally to give away the bride. It is, however, admitted that what was necessary was that the giving away of the bride s...
E. St. C. Moss and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal460
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal by five persons, Jumman Bepari, Tasaddak. Hossain alias Bachu Mia, Mahammad Kurban Hossain, Tilla Mahmud Khan and E. St. C. Moss who have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca sitting with a jury under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine.2. The case for the prosecution briefly is that the accused Moss who was a Sergeant in the Railway Police at Dacca went down to Calcutta ostensibly because his wife was ill but substantially in order to arrange for smuggling cocaine from Calcutta to Dacca and for that purpose he engaged in a conspiracy with the four other accused Bachu Mia, Kurban Hossain, Tilla Mahmud Khan and Jumman Bepari. In pursuance of this conspiracy one Kalu Mia who was a servant of the accused Moss set out for Dacca from Calcutta with a box which contained a quantity of cocaine. Bachu Mia who is one of the appellants went w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »