Kolkata Court April 1926 Judgments
Panna Lal Ghose Vs. the Adjai Coal Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal117,101Ind.Cas.62
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for underground trespass committee and coal extracted by the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, and for a permanent as well as a temporary injunction and for other reliefs. The facts which Jed up to the institution of the suit are these:The plaintiffs are the Adjai Coal Co., Ltd. Before the Company was incorporated as a joint stock company with limited liability, some of the members thereof had formed a syndicate known as the Adjai Coal Syndicate. On the 6th August 1891 the syndicate obtained an amalnamah from the patnidars of village Raipur Nandi by which the latter agreed to grant the syndicate a mining lease in respect of 500 bighas of coal lands in the village and within certain boundaries and upon certain terms and conditions. The patnidars were divided into 2 groups, namely, the Laiks and the Chakrabartis, the former having a 12 annas share and the latter the remaining 4 annas. Of the Laiks Kaliprasanna had a 6 annas share, Bejoy Go...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomjee Dorabjee Vs. K.D. Brothers and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal163
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Rustomjae Dorabjee against an order of the learned Judge sitting in insolvency on the Original Side, dated the 13th January 1925. The order is headed as follows:Numbers 10 and 27 of 1924, re Krishna Das and Brij Mohan Das both residing and carrying of business in co-partnership in bioscope films with Jug Mohan Das at No. 150, Lower Chitpur Road, in the town of Calcutta, under the name and style of K.D. Brothers find re Messrs. K.D. Brothers a firm carrying on business in cinema trims and as exhibitors of cinema shows at 150, Lower Chitpur Road, in the town of Calcutta and at the Goverdhone Buildings, Charni Road, in the Sown of Bombay and at Sule Pagoda Road in the town of Rangoon.2. The order recited that Mr. Landlord James appeared for the insolvent firm; Mr. A. Sen, advocate for Rustomjee Dorabjee, one of the creditors of the insolvent firm; and another learned advocate for another creditor of the said firm.3. It was further recited that the in...
Tag this Judgment!Jewraj Khari-wallah Vs. Kanai Lal Phoplia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.131
Cuming, J.1. This is a Rule issued by my learned brothers Mr. Justice B. B. Ghose and Mr. Justice Panton against an order of the learned District Judge of Alipur refusing to grant ad interim protection to the petitioner pending his adjudication as an insolvent. It would appear that the Petitioner applied to the District Judge to b declared an insolvent and asked the District Judge that pending the decision of his application to be adjudicated an insolvent, he should be protected against arrest at the instance of his creditors Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The learned District Judge rejected that application on the ground that the Provincial Insolvency Act made no provisions for such ad interim protection, nor was there any law under which an ad interim protection could be granted.2. This Rule must obviously be discharged, for the learned District Judge is clearly quite right in the view he has taken. The learned Vakil who has appeared for the petitioner has been unable to point out to us any sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Jewraj Kharewalla Vs. Lalbhai Kalyanbhai and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1011
Cuming J.1. This is a Rule issued by my learned brothers, Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose and Mr. Justice Panton, against an order of the learned District Judge of Alipur refusing to grant ad interim protection to the petitioner pending his adjudication as an insolvent. It would appear that the petitioner applied to the District. Judge to be declared an insolvent and asked the District Judge that pending the decision of his application to be adjudicated an insolvent, he should be protected against arrest at the instance of his Creditors Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The learned District Judge rejected that application on the ground thai the Provincial Insolvency Act made no provisions for such an ad interim protection, nor was there any law under which an ad interim protection could be granted.2. This Rule must obviously be discharged, for the learned District Judge is clearly quite right in the view he has taken. The learned vakil who has appeared for the petitioner has been unable to point out to us any s...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Mathura Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal936,102Ind.Cas.148
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for joint possession with regard to a four annas share of a piece of land. The plaintiffs and the defendant are co-sharer landlords. The disputed land was in the possession of a tenant named Brindaban Nath. After his death, his widow Anandamoyee was in possession of it. Then Anandamoyee abandoned the holding about 11 years ago and the defendant who is a landlord to the extent of a four annas share took possession of the entire land. The plaintiffs, therefore, seek joint possession with the defendant of their four annas share of the land, to which they say they are entitled on the abandonment of the holding by the tenant. The first Court made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on what appears to be the principal ground that the defendant had been in actual possession of the land for over 11 years by erecting a tin-shed thereon. He held that there was no ouster of the plaintiffs or any waste of...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Chandra Sen Gupta Vs. Jogendra Nath Roy Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal93,97Ind.Cas.955
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows : The present appellant before us-who was Defendant No. 1 in the trial Court was a Sub-Inspector of police attached to the Satkhira Police Station. Defendant No. 2 in the case was a collecting punchayet of the village and a1 neighbour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he was on bad terms with the Defendant No. 2. There was a theft, in the house of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 sent the chowkidar of the-village to the thana to give information. He supplied with this information a list of articles which, he alleged, had been stolen from his house. The chowkidar when giving the information at the thana did not name any specific person as being-suspected to have been concerned in the theft. Defendant No. 1, the present appellant before us, was deputed by the superior officer to investigate the case. He arrived at the village some time at 5 or 6 in the evening. On receiving certain informatio...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Bose and Co. Vs. Allen Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal72,97Ind.Cas.479
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings in execution. It would appear that the appellant brought a suit against the respondent for the balance due on account and on the I9fch July 1921, obtained a decree for the amount of Rs. 14,547-9-81/2. The judgment-debtor appealed to the High Court and Rs. 14,719-14-6 was deposited by the judgment-debtor under an order of this Court with the stipulation that the decree-holder might withdraw the amount on giving security or withdraw up to Rs. 8,000 without giving any security. This money was deposited on the 16th September 1921. On the 7th November 1921, the decree-holder, in conformity with the order of this Court, withdrew the sum of Rs. 3,000 which he was allowed to withdraw without giving any security. The appeal was decided, by this Court on the 4th March 1924, the appeal being dismissed and the order of the lower Court upheld. Then, on the 13th May 1924, the appellant withdrew the balance that was in deposit, namely, Rs. 11...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Das Gupta Vs. BipIn Behary Pramanik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal75,97Ind.Cas.546
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The landlord sued to enhance the rent of his tenant. His case was that the tenant was a settled raiyat and the rent was liable to enhancement. The main defence was that the tenant held the jama at a fixed rate of rent from the time of the Permanent Settlement and this rate was not liable to enhancement. There was a further contention of the defendant that Plot No. 135 was all high land and no part of it was water. The first Court allowed the application of the plaintiff. On appeal to the Special Judge the Special Judge found that the land was held at a fixed rate of rent and, therefore, was not liable to enhancement, and he varied the decision of the first Court to that extent.2. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court. The learned advocate for the appellant first of all contends that if a person holds under a lease which is of later date than the Permanent Settlement then the presu...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Gaharali Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal148,97Ind.Cas.603
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued to recover rent for four years of a certain 4'45 acres of diara land at a jama of Rs. 29-3-6. The defendant's case was that they held a nim howla under the plaintiffs which comprised some 17 odd acres at an annual jama of Rs. 21-10-7.2. The first Court found that this jama of 545 acres had been carved out of a larger jama of 17 acres by the Diara Deputy Collector. The trial Court held that the diara assessment could not supersede the Record of Rights unless it was shown that the tenants were parties to the diara proceedings, and on this finding he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court. The District Court held that the Diara Deputy Collector acting under Regulation 7 of 1822 had no power to assess the rent to be paid by a tenant to a zemindar. All that he could do was to record what rents were actually being paid by the tenants, and in this view of the law he dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Bireswar Mookherji and ors. Vs. Srimati Troilokhya Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.315
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of an action, in. ejectment on the ground that the defendant is a tenant on the land and the tenancy has been terminated by proper service of notice to quit. The plea of the defendant is that she holds a permanent interest and her tenancy is not liable to be terminated by notice. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs but did not allow them the rent claimed and' costs. The defendant appealed against that decision and the plaintiffs also preferred a cross-objection as regards the portion of the claim dismissed. The Subordinate Judge held that the tenancy was a permanent one. He relied upon these facts: There was no written lease creating the tenancy; the tenancy had come down to the defendant by a series of successions; the rent had not been changed for at least 65 years: the land was let out for dwelling purposes and it was situated within the Howrah Municipality; the rent remained unchanged, whereas the value of the land...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »