Kolkata Court June 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.
Abani Nath Mukerji Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal322
1. This appeal by the plaintiff raises a question of some importance with regard to the procedure relating to assessment of cesses on re-valuation of an estate under Section 15 of the Cess Act. We must at the outset say that the facts of this casa reveal considerable irregularities in the office which was concerned with the levying of rates under the Cess Act.2. In this case it appears that there was a re-valuation of the estate of the plaintiff in the years 1914 and 1915. But cesses were realized at the old rate till March 1919 and although there was a re-valuation of the estate no one discovered that cesses were being realized at the old rate for a period of about three years. It seems that somebody woke up on the 28th March 1919 and found that the rates were being realized at a rate considerably below the re-valuation made in the years 1914 and 1915 and demand was made for the increased rate for three preceding years which the plaintiff refused to pay. There were proceedings before ...
Subhash Chandra Bose Vs. R. Knight and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal297,101Ind.Cas.565
Buckland, J.1. This is an action for damages for libel. The words complained of are contained in an issue of the 'Statesman' newspaper published on the 26th November 1924. The case was opened by Mr. Sircar, and Mr. Langford James on behalf of the defendants, submitted the following issues:1. Are the words defamatory?2. Are they fair comment?3. Where they published on a privileged occasion?4. Damages?2. Mr. Sircar has submitted that to Issue No. 2 the words should be added 'on the facts set out in the alleged libel.' The reason for that is because paragraph 5 of the written statement states that in so far as the words complained of consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comment made in good faith and without malice 'upon the said facts' which are matters of public interest. Upon the authority of Aga Khan v. The Times Publishing Co. [1924] 1 K.B. 675 he has submitted that where the plea takes that form, facts other then these contained in the passage complained of as introductor...
Dhananjoy Das and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal388,101Ind.Cas.688
Graham, J.1. In this case a Rule waft issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsiff of Bhola, 1st Court, exercising Small Cause Court powers dated the 18th December 1925 dismissing a suit for money brought by the petitioners should not be set aside upon certain grounds stated in the petition to this Court. The suit in question was instituted on the 12th February 1925 and was for realization of a sum of Rs. 195-1-0 upon a bond alleged to have been executed by the defendant, now the opposite party, It appears that from that date until the 18th December 1925 the suit in question was treated as an ordinary money suit. The written statement was filed on the; 8th April 1925 and issues were settled on the 30th April 1925. After that there; followed a number of adjournments Subsequently another Munsiff took charge of the Court and on She 18th December 1925 that officer was invested: with Small Cause Court powers Up to Rs. 250. Thereafter ho passed an order t...
Reliance Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahomed Omar Mahomed Yacoob
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1030,97Ind.Cas.286
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to the present application, shortly stated, are as follows: On the 11th August, 1923, Messrs Gr. Atherton & Co. of Liverpool shipped two packages intended for the plaintiffs per Sections Mashud from Liverpool to Calcutta and, according to the plaintiffs' instruction insured the same with the defendant com' pany for 220. A certificate of insurance was issued by the defendant Company The steamship Mashud arrived in Calcutta sometime in September, 1923. The two, packages in question were cleared in apparently good condition, on or about the 20th September, 1923, and were brought to the godown of the plaintiffs' Calcutta Branch at 5 Colootola 2nd Lane. It was then discovered that one of the packages was much lighter than the other and the attention of Messrs. Gladstone, Wyllie and Co., the agents of the defendant, Company, was drawn to the same. The plaintiffs asked for a.,...
Bhabadeb Chatterjee Vs. Bhusan Chandra Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.321
S.A. No. 543 of 1923Pearson, J.1. The plaintiff claims the use of the water in the defendant's tank for bathing and other purposes. His claim has been upheld.2. The argument on behalf of the appellant has been rested very largely upon considerations arising upon the English authorities relative to the law of easements prevailing in that country, though it is indeed conceded that the word in its use in Section 26 of the Indian Limitation Act, as shown by the Explanation in Section 2, is wider than the meaning of the word in English Law and would include at least a profit a prendre. Incases of this character attention has been directed by the Judicial Committee to the danger of proceeding necessarily upon English authorities. In Bhola Nath Nundi v. Midnapore Zemindary Co. 31 C. 503 : 8 C.W.N. 425 : 14 M.L.J. 152 : 31 I.A. 75 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 611 (P.C.) a case of villagers claiming a right of pasturage, Lord Macnaghten said: 'It appears to their Lordships that on proof of the fact of enjoy...
Har Kumar De Vs. Jagat Bandhu De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal247
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal raises a short question, but with regard to which there seems to be a good deal of controversy.2. The plaintiff brought the suit for damages against the defendant for obtaining an order of temporary injunction wrongfully on insufficient grounds, by reason of which the plaintiff had suffered damages, inasmuch as he had to pay compensation to a third person on account of breach of a contract for erecting a hut. The defendant had brought a suit for possession of a certain property and, in the course of the suit, he had obtained a temporary injunction restraining the present plaintiff from going on with the building operation on the disputed land. The suit was decided in favour of the present plaintiff and thereupon the injunction was dissolved.3. It is unnecessary for me to state in detail all the facts alleged, having regard to the order that we propose to make in this case.4. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the defend...
Chandi Charan Das and anr. Vs. Dulal Paik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1083
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, accounts and for various other reliefs. The plaintiff-respondent is the daughter's son of one Lokenath Mandal. Lokenath had two brothers, Tarak Nath and Hiralal. Lokenash left his widow Monmohini, his daughter Ramani, the Defendant No. 5, and his daughter's son Dulal Chandra, the plaintiff. Tarak Nath's widow Uma Sundari was the Defendant No. 3 since deceased. Hiralal left two sons Chandi, the Defendant No. 1, and Kedar Nath, the Defendant No. 2, and a daughter Bhabini, the Defendant No. 4.2. Lokenath established a deity Sree Sree Radha Krishna Jiu in his dwelling-house in May 1902. On the 20th July 1902 he executed an arpannama (deed of endowment). On the 26th July 1903 he executed a Will. On the 31st July of the same year he executed an ekrar. A codicil was executed on the 11th November 1904.3. On the 4th December 1907 Monmohini obtained probate of the Will of Lokenath, In 1912, the Defendants' Nos. 1 and 2 brought an a...
Jahur Sheikh and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1107
Rankin, J.1. In this case, the two appellants before the Court were convicted by a jury by a majority of 5 to 4. They were accused of having caused the death of one Abul Hossein otherwise called Munser Bap and the charge against them was one under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The case, in effect, is that the deceased man together with one Mahomed Jan who lived in his house as a servant went from his own village to another village called Kaichipore, that these two men were returning in the evening and just after sunset, they were met by the two appellants, that after a word or two of conversation what happened was that Samiuddin--the second appellant--struck Abul Hossein on or about his shoulder with an instrument which looked like a ruler and knocked him down on the road and that thereupon Jahur--the first appellant--made after Mahomed Jan, the servant, with a dao and the servant ran home to his own village and meeting certain persons there told them what had happened. It a...
Pramatha Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Rajah Bejoy Singh Dhudhuria a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal234
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits for rent brought by the plaintiff for the years 1325 to 1327 for lands which are non-agricultural and which are said to have been let out to the predecessors of the plaintiffs a considerable number of years ago extending over 50 years.2. The original defendants in Suit No. 1742 out of which the second appeal No. 402 arises wore three. Defendant No. 1 subsequently died and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were her heirs. Defendant No. 3 had transferred his interest to Defendants Nos. 4 to 8. The appellants before us are the defendants. The plea of the defendants was that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit for rent. The appeal was limited to the claim for rent after Assin 1327, when Budh Singh, the testator, whose executors, are two of the plaintiffs, died. It is now admitted by the appellants that they are bound to pay rent to the plaintiffs for the period till the death of Budh Singh. But after the death of Budh Singh t...
Raja Rishikesh Law Vs. Srimati Mandakini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1185,97Ind.Cas.678
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for declaration of her mourasi mokurrari right to some lands and for khas possession of the same, and in the alternative for possession by receipt of fair and equitable rent and for mesne profits.2. The plaintiff's case was that she held the lands in suit under the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 under a maurasi mokurrari lease granted to her by their predecessors, the former zemindar of the pergunnah and that the lands are described in the said lease as being paikan jaigir lands and as comprising an area of 82 bighas, but they have been found on measurement, at the recent survey and settlement, to be 130 bighas and odd, that the lands were the paikan land of Mouzah Chaitanyapur and were in the possession of certain paiks who used to hold them in lieu of wages and paid some peshkush rent and rendered service to the plaintiff or her predecessor, that the plaintiff had come to learn that the Collector had abolish...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »