Kolkata Court December 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.
Kumarish Ch. Mukhopadhya Vs. Ram Taran Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal939
Mukerji, J.1. The judgment of the learned District Judge complained of in this rule deals with an application for revision of a decision passed by the learned Munsif in a suit for rent. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before us in the Court of the learned District Judge against the said decision of the Munsif. The learned Judge, being of opinion that no appeal lay, passed an order to the effect that the memorandum of appeal would be treated as a petition of motion. If the learned Judge was dealing with the matter in revision it is clear that his judgment cannot be assailed, for he has observed in his judgment that even if the Court of first instance had wrongly decided the question of res judicata in favour of the opposite party, that decision could not be challenged in revision, because in revision the learned Judge would be confined to questions of jurisdiction.2. It has, however, been urged before us that an appeal lay to the learned District Judge. Now, it appears that the pl...
Adam Ali Taluqdar and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal324
1. Appeal No. 427 of 1926. This is an appeal by two persons, Adam Ali Taluqdar and Sher Gazi, who have been sentenced by the Sessions Judge of Barisal, agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, to seven years rigorous imprisonment under the second part of Section 304, I.P.C.2. The facts are as follows : There are two persons, Ekram Ali and Akkel Ali, who own a piece of land each having an eight-annas share in it. By arrangement Ekram Ali possessed the northern half and Akkel Ali the southern half. Akkel Ali is the husband of the sister of Ekram Ali. Ekram Ali mortgaged the land to Adam Ali Taluqdar, one of the appellants now before us, and Adam Ali was in possession. Then Akkel Ali sold the land, to Ekram Ali. Ekram Ali wanted to redeem the mortgage and tendered the money to Adam Ali. There were some disputes about the payment of the money, but Ekram Ali cultivated the land. On the 25th December 1925, Adam Ali, Sher Gazi and Abdul Gafur, who is the appellant in a connected appea...
Sir William Henry Turner and ors. Vs. Kilburn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal332,101Ind.Cas.854
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiffs as owners of the S.S. Zingara Sue the defendant firm as charterers under a charter party dated 22nd November 1920, for damages for the detention of the vessel caused by the defendants' failure to provide a cargo at the proper time. The charter party was for two consecutive voyages from Calcutta to a place called Dwarka on the Bombay side. The cargo is described in the charter party as 'a full and complete cargo of coal in bulk,'2. The detention complained of extended as regards the first voyage from 14th December 1920 to 13th January 1921, and as regards the second voyage from 8th March 1921 to 27th March 1921.3. The defendants are managing agents of certain collieries and in November 1920, were arranging to supply two cargoes of coal to the Dwarka Cement Co. Ltd., beginning with a shipment early in December. The defendants having arranged to charter a steamer for the purpose it would appear that a Mr. Foster acting for the defendants saw a Mr. Cruickshank...
Pravat Chandra Giri Vs. Amulya Chandra Bahaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal340,101Ind.Cas.527
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule instituted a suit for rent in the first Court of the Munsif at Hooghly. The suit was for recovery of the rent for the years 1329 to 1332. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that he had a Patni Taluq in Mouza Jagannathpur and that defendants in the suit were tenants under him. The tenants appeared and filed a written statement alleging amongst other things that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for rent as Mouza Jagannathpur was in the possession of the Receiver who had been appointed in respect of what is known as the Tarakeswar estate and that they had already paid the rents which were due from them to the said Receiver. These allegations of the defendants were supported by the Receiver who made an application to the Munsif on the 14th August 1926 praying to be added as a party to the suit. The Munsif rejected this application by an order dated the 16th August 1926, and in the said order it appears to have suggested that the R...
Sm. Matangini Devi and anr. Vs. Behari Lal Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal935
Duval, J.1. In this case there was an application made for execution of a certain decree passed in a will case which had been finally decided by this Court on the 5th January 1921. In March 1923 an application was made to transfer the case to the Subordinate Judge of Asansol for execution. It was so transferred but was subsequently dismissed for default. Then a fresh application was made before the District Judge for execution of the decree on the 5th May 1924. A notice was issued apparently under Order 21, Rule 22 and a petition of objection was filed. The case was adjourned for various reasons mainly because the District Judge engaged himself in the Sessions from August 1924 to August 1925 and came up on the 22nd of that month when the decree-holder was absent. The judgment-debtor was present by his pleader and the Judge passed the following order:The petitioner's pleader is present. The execution case is hereby dismissed' for default and petitioner's objection is allowed.2. Now it i...
Dharanidhar Boral Vs. Panchanan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal559,101Ind.Cas.15
1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit for redemption. His case was that the predecessor of Defendant No. 4 owned Plots Nos. 1 to 8 and that Defendant No. 3 owned Plot No. 9 : and that they two morgaged these nine plots to Defendant No. 1 on the 11th June 1898. The predecessor of Defendant No. 4, however, sold Plots Nos. 2 to 8 to the present plaintiff on the 18th August 1898. Defendant No. 1 in the year 1910 sued on his mortgage without making the present plaintiff a party. He obtained a decree on the 1st February 1911, which in due course became final and the mortgaged property was put to sale on the 8th October 1912, and then Defendant No. 1 purchased Plot No. 9 and Defendant No. 2 the other plots. Subsequently, there appears to have been criminal proceedings. This suit was then brought by the plaintiff on the ground that he being the purchaser of the equity of redemption has not been affected by the sale in the year 1921. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree holding th...
Bidhu Bhusan Bakshi Vs. Kala Chand Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal775
1. We have examined the prayers in the plaint and we are of opinion that although they have been worded as embodying reliefs which on the face of them appear to be of a declaratory nature, two at least of these reliefs are really consequential ones. We are of opinion that the reason of the decision of this Court in the case of Tara Prasanna v. Nrisingha Moorari Pal : AIR1924Cal731 fully applies to the present case, and the registrar is right in the view he has taken, namely that ad valorem Court-fees must be paid on the memorandum of appeal. He is also right in holding that the Court-fees paid on the plaint as well as on the memorandum of appeal which the plaintiff filed in the lower appellate Court were insufficient.2. Then a question has been raised in view of Section 28, Court-fees Act, as to the propriety of the registrar's order calling upon the appellant to pay the deficit Court-fees on the plaint and on the plaintiff's memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate Court. It has be...
B. Walvekar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal966,96Ind.Cas.264
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. There are two appeals, being Appeals Nos. 714 and 715 of 1925, arising out of two prosecutions under certain sections of the Calcutta Police Act, being Bengal Act IV of 1866. The accused B. Walvekar and three others named R.N. Habib, Makbular Kahman and Gujanand are the appellants in Appeal No. 714, while the accused R. Walvekar is the sole appellant in Appeal No. 715. In the first case the accused have been convicted under Section 44 of the Calcutta Police Act and have been sentenced to pay certain fines, i.e., the accused B. Walvekar has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks; the accused R.N. Habib has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks; the accused Makbular Rahman and Gujanand have each been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks. In ...
Lalit Mohan Banerjee and anr. Vs. Norodamoyi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal494,101Ind.Cas.339
1. This is a suit in partition. It was dismissed by the first Court but on an appeal to the lower appellate Court the decree of the first Court was set aside and the suit was decreed. It appears that there were two brothers, Khettro and Dharani. Dharani died before Khettro, leaving a widow, the present plaintiff-respondent. Khettro died leaving no wife. Khettro left a Will appointing the present appellants executors to his estate. By the Will he dealt with all the properties which he enjoyed with, Dharani as his own. It appears that the properties consisted of a rope-factory, cash and residence. He left Rs. 300 out of the cash to the plaintiff. She was also to get Rs. 4 a month from the profits in the rope-factory and she was to have also a life-estate in the residence. Thereafter it appears that she had to bring two suits for her maintenance to recover her monthly allowance out of the rope-factory and interest on the legacy of Rs. 300 which for some reason or other was not made over t...
Kasiswar Ray and ors. Vs. Satya Brahma Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal312,101Ind.Cas.133
Mukerji, J.1. There was a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside a sale. It was on the file of Mr. K.K. Sen who was then the Subordinate Judge of the second Court at Barisal. The proceeding was dismissed for default by Mr. K.K. Sen on the 20th of March 1926. On the 16th of April 1926 Mr. K.K. Sen was put in charge of the business attaching to the Court of the first Subordinate Judge of the district. On the 20th of April 1926 the petitioners, against whom the aforesaid order of dismissal for default was passed, made an application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure before Mr. K.K. Sen who, as I have already said, had by this time become-the presiding Judge of the first Court. This application was dealt with by Mr. K.K. Sen as the Subordinate Judge, first Court of Barisal, on the 3rd May: 1926 with the following order:Let the petition be returned to the filing, pleader, Babu Lakshmi Prasanna Banerjee for filing it in the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »