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.
Suresh Chandra Banerji Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal357
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Special Land Acquisition Judge on a reference made at the instance of the present appellant and another who was described as Claimant No. 1, named Mohini Mohan Banerji, against an award made by the Collector. The land acquired was 21 bighas odd and was used as a brick-field. It was let out to two brothers named Bull from October 1910 for ten years. The land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in 1914 when five years of the lease still remained to run. The rent payable by the Bull brothers to the two claimants was Rs. 1,800 per year. The interest of the claimants was that of dar-mokarraridars. The Collector awarded compensation on the basis of the rent reserved by the lease and allowed 20 years' purchase-money to the claimants. The total amount was Rs. 30,836. In their application for reference to the Judge the two claimants wanted compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,18,000 odd. The learned Judge upheld the Collector's ...
Bansidhur Marwari and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal533
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an application for extension of time under Section 5, Limitation Act, for filing an appeal to this Court against an order of the Land Acquisition Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for restoration of his previous application dismissed for default. It appears that on a reference by the Collector the matter came up before the Land Acquisition Judge and on the 21st May 1924 it was dismissed for default in the absence of the petitioner. On the 11th June 1924, the petitioners applied under Order 9, Rule 9, for restoration of the case. This application was also dismissed for default on the 10th January 1925. On the 6fch March 1925, the petitioners applied before the Land Acquisition Judge for review of his order, dated the 10th January 1925 That application for review was dismissed on the 26th June 1926.2. The petitioners thereafter presented a memorandum of appeal to this Court on the 30th July 1926 directed against the order of the 10th January 1925 and ...
Firm Bhican Chand Charoria Vs. Firm G. and M. Fogt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.299
Charu Chunder 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, areas 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 15,003 1/2 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 respo...
Banshidhur Marwari and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.479
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an application for extension of time under Section 5 Limitation Act, for filing an appeal to this Court against an order of the Land Acquisition Judge dismissing the petitioners' application for restoration of their previous application dismissed for default. It appears that on a reference by the Collector the matter came up before the Land Acquisition Judge and on the 21st May, 1924 it was dismissed for default in the absence of the petitioners. On the 11th June, 1924 the petitioners applied under Order IX, Rule 9 for restoration of the case. This application was also dismissed for default on the 10th January, 1925, On the 6th March, 1925 the Ptitioners applied before the Land Acquisition Judge for review of his order, dated the 10th January, 1925. That application for review was dismissed on the 26th June, 1926. The petitioners thereafter presented a memorandum of appeal to this Court on the 30th July, 1926,| directed against the order of the 10th January, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›