Kolkata Court April 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.
Kissen Gopal Karnani Vs. Suklal Karnani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal76
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Kissen Gopal Karnani, the plaintiff in the suit, against a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson made on the 19th of November 1925.2. The application in respect of which the judgment was delivered, was an application for an order that the suit might bo restored and that the decree and order passed by Mr. Justice Pearson on the 12th November 1924 striking out the suit might be set aside in review or otherwise and thereafter the suit be proceeded with.3. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover an alleged balance of salary and the plaintiff took out a summons under Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of this Court. Certain directions were given with regard to the filing of the written statement, as to the giving of discovery and directions were made that the case should be placed in the Daily List of the 9th May 1924.4. On the 17th April 1924 the plaintiff was adjudicated insolvent at the instance of a person, who had obtained an ex parte ...
Srimati Bhaba Sundari Devi and anr. Vs. Aditya Nath Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal401
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge of Midnapur on the 5th June 1925. The defendants are the appellants before us, The plaintiffs instituted this suit out of which the appeal arises for enforcement of a mortgage. The mortgage bond in question is alleged to have been executed by one Dhanada Debya. The learned Munsiff found that there was no legal necessity for the loan, that there was no proof of proper attestation of the bond and that the suit was instituted nearly 12 years after the due date of payment and that the payments alleged to have been made were not proved, and upon these findings the learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs thereupon preferred an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge. He held in the first instance that the legal necessity for the loan had been proved and there was satisfactory evidence that the mortgagee made the advance after honest enquiry. On the ...
Mohan Singh Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. Panchanan Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal106
Page, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of practice. The plaintiffs-appellants are members of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. Earn Singh Chowdhuri died some time before 1888, leaving him surviving a widow Rup Kumari and an only son Mohan Singh Chowdhuri, since deceased. The male plaintiffs are the adult sons of Mohan Singh, and the two minor sons are represented by the plaintiff Rani Kumari their mother and natural guardian. In 1888 as the result of a partition suit a certain tank which is the subject matter of these proceedings remained the joint property of the members of the family, but was divided into specified shares of which the plaintiffs received a 4/5th share and Rup Kumari 1/5th share. In 1898 Sib Gopal Banerji obtained a personal decree for money lent against Rup Kumari. In 1904 Rup Kumari died. In 1905 proceedings in execution of this decree were taken by Sib Gopal, the decree-holder, and in the course of these proceeding's the plaintiffs were ...
Srilal Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.945
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule was issued on the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, to show cause why the petitioners should not be produced before a Magistrate or, in the alternative, why they should not be released on bail. With regard to the second ground I do not think we should interfere at this stage. There is no order by any Court which will give us power to direct the petitioners to be released on bail under Section 498 or even under Section 497, Cr.P.C.2. With regard to the other question, namely, that the petitioners should be forthwith produced before a Magistrate, it is argued oh behalf of the petitioners that under the law it is the duty of the Police Officer who has kept the petitioners in custody to produce them before a Magistrate with as little delay as possible, and that the power of such officer to keep the petitioners in custody is limited to such acts as are necessary for the purpose of placing the petitioners before a Magistrate. It is conceded that Section .61, Cr.P.C...
Rampada Nag Madak Vs. Kanai Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1219
1. The facts of the case are that the decree-holder obtained in 1917 a decree for rent against four persons who were tenants of the holding in respect of which the rent suit; was brought. One of the judgment-debtors, Protap Roy, died in 1921. Execution of the decree was taken out in. 1923 against all the judgment-debtors including Protap Roy and on 12th July 1923 notices under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., were issued and subsequently served, it was alleged, on all the judgment-debtors including Protap Roy. The holding was put to sale and purchased by a third party on 8th October 1923. On 7th June 1924 the respondent, heir of Protap Roy, filed an-application for setting aside the sale, purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., on the ground (1). that the sale proclamation and other processes were fraudulently suppressed; (2) that Protap Roy having died long before the execution proceedings were started and no substitution having been made in his place the sale was a nullit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›