Kolkata Court November 1927 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.
Syed MujibuddIn Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Reajuddi Matbar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.471
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Faridpur, dated the 10th May, 1927, should not be set aside or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The order referred to in the Rule. is one by which the District Judge dismissed an appeal in his Court and affirmed the order of the Sadar Munsif of Faridpur, dated the 8th January, 1927, setting aside an auction sale. The Rule has been obtained by the decree holders-auction-purchasers.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party, namely, the judgment-debtors, which is to the effect that in point of fact no appeal lay to the learned District Judge from the order of the Munsif inasmuch as the Munsif was vested with final powers under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and there was no question which could bring the case within the exception mentioned in that section. In support of this preliminary objection reference has been made to the...
Juran Mandal and ors. Vs. Ram Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal737,113Ind.Cas.37
Suhrawardy, J.1. I agree with my learned brother in the construction he has put upon the contract in this case. I only wish to refer to certain vernacular expressions on which the parties have attempted to put different constructions. The kabuliyat in suit is a mourashi mokararri kabuliyat. After describing the land leased under it, it recites : ukto jomir barshik gula ekbisa panah adi dhan jahar mulya panchas taka hoytechhe abdharitey. Translated literally the clause will stand thus : Of the aforesaid land the annual, paddy rent, 1 bishi and 5 aris of paddy, the price of which is Rs. 50, having been fixed or settled. The word abdharitey according to the context refers to gula or paddy rent which was settled at 1 bishi and 5 aris. The learned vakil for the respondent has laid great stress upon the word abdharitey and suggests that it should go, not with the paddy rent but with Rs. 50, the price of the paddy rent. He bases his argument on certain observations made by Banerjee, J., in th...
Umesh Chandra Majumdar Vs. Mt. Safiyatannessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal267
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the order against which this Rule is directed are shortly as follows : The petitioners obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors in 1910 in Money Suit No. 750/1164 of that year. In 1920 a jote of the judgment-debtors-was sold in execution of rent decree obtained by the landlords and was purchased by some other parties and the sum of Rs. 525 was deposited by them in Court in two instalments. The petitioners had failed to realize the amount of their decree of 1910 and they, on the amount of Rs. 525 being put in by the auction-purchasers, applied for attachment of a certain portion of the said amount, Rs. 287-10-0 having gone towards the satisfaction of the decree for rent and Rs. 287-6-0 being left in Court-as surplus sale proceeds. As a result of the proceedings thus instituted by the petitioners, they were allowed to withdraw Rs. 79-2-6 from Court, out of the aforesaid amount deposited by the auction-purchasers, in part satisfac...
Haji Ramjan Ali Vs. Hafiz Abdul Gaffiur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal864
Pearson, J.1. In this matter I passed on order on 8th November that the ex-parte decree of 2nd May should be set aside. The order has not yet been completed, and I have been asked to reconsider it on further argument. It is argued that Article 164, Lim. Act, concludes the matter, for that article provides a limitation period of 30 days for an application by a defendant to set aside a decree passed ex parte, the time from which the period begins to run being either the date of the decree or, where summons has not been duly served, the time when the applicant has knowledge of the decree. It is said that in the circumstances of this case the period of limitation should commence from the date of the decree; that there is no question in the present case as regards the due service of the writ of summons, and it is only in the latter case that the period of limitation commences to run from the time when the applicant has knowledge of the decree2. But on the other hand it is contended that Art...
Kambho Bera Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal381
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kambhoo Bera, who has been convicted by Mr. J.D. Tyson, formerly Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, under Section 6 of the Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (Bengal Act 13 of 1923), and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, with an additional terms of six months' rigorous imprisonment in the event of default to pay the fine. The case is stated to be the first of its kind and keenly contested before the Magistrate. The section in question reads as follows:6(1) Any male person, who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution, shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, or with whipping, or with both of those punishments, and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.(2) Where a male person is proved : (i) to be; living with, or to be habitually in the company of a prostitute, or (ii), to have exercised control, dire...
Gokuldas and anr. Vs. Chagan Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal887
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of my learned brother Mr. Page, J., by which he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. The suit was instituted on 23rd March 1923, and the plaint as it stood, was filed against five defendants, namely, Chagan Lal, Sohan Lal, Kanya Lal, Rukmani and Mathuia Bai. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs' allegations were these : They stated that there was a dwelling house in Bhawalpore in the Punjab in which they were interested as part owners and that the said house had been sold by the defendant Chagan Lal acting for himself and as the constituted attorney of the other defendants by several conveyances in the months of March and April 1920. They further alleged that the sales were effected without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs or any of them and that Chagan Lal had realized a sum of Rs. 19,476. They stated also that they were entitled to one-third of the sum of Rs. 19,476, that is to say, to th...
Satyabrata Sen Vs. Gopal Das Aurora, and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Cal373
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant before us. What happened is as follows: The plaintiff lent and advanced in Calcutta on 18th July 1924, a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the defendants named in para. 4 of the plaint, the said defendants executing a promissory note for the said amount. It appears that at the time when the said advance was made the title-deeds of a certain property outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court were deposited with the plaintiff as collateral security for the said amount. The defendants not having repaid to the plaintiff the amount of the principal and of the interest which had accrued due, the plaintiff presented a plaint in this Court on 10th August 1927, for admission praying for a declaration that an equitable mortgage had been created by the deposit of the said title-deeds and for the usual mortgage decree. No part of the mortgaged premises being situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff prayed for leave under C...
Jewraj Khariwal Vs. Doyal Chand Johury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal211
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of 24 - Parganas passed under Section 70, Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, directing the prosecution of the appellant on making a complaint to a Magistrate of some offences mentioned in Section 69 of the Act. It appears that one of the creditors of the insolvent made an application before the District Judge complaining of certain fraudulent acts of the insolvent which were mentioned under seven heads in the petition. There was also a report from the Receiver in which it was complained that the insolvent had not disclosed all his properties. The learned Judge, presumably on the material before him held thathe was satisfied that the insolvent had wilfully failed to perform the duties imposed on him by Section 22 of the Act by not producing his accounts and other books and by withholding documents relating to his affairs and that he had failed to disclose certain property to wit, two motor cars.2. The appellant has ...
Bhupendra Mohan Pal Choudhuri Vs. Jatindar Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.571
Duval, J.1. In this case the opposite party is a school master. He was appointed by the petitioner who was the Secretary of the Lohajang High School provisionally as a teacher in January, 1923, on a pay of Rs. 45 a month and joined his post, In the following March the Committee resolved that owing to financial stringency they could not keep six graduates on the staff and so they determined that the opposite party's services and those of two others be dispensed with. No action appears to have then been taken in the matter which came up again on the 24th July and then the Committee finally dispensed with the opposite party's services resolving that he will not be required after the 16th of August. He then on the 16th of August ceased to work and was paid up to that date, at the rate of Rs. 45 a month. He appears to have claimed that he was entitled to some notice and that he only got notice on the 8th of August but waiting for sometime just within the period of limitation he brought a su...
KasiraddIn Paramanik Vs. Kasir Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal227
Duval, J.1. In this matter the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 500, the balance due on a certain jute transaction. The defendant, in his written statement, stated that the case was false, but, on the other hand, he was entitled to a certain amount from the plaintiff. He did not mention in his written statement in the suit that he had sued in the Court of the 2nd Munsif for his counter-claim, the suit which was dismissed a little over a month after the present suit before the Small Cause Court Judge was disposed of. The case came on for hearing. The Judge heard the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defendant and his witnesses and arguments on both sides. It then appears that he took the ordinary noon-day adjournment and, on coming back to the Court, it is admitted by him in the explanation he furnished, he put the plaintiff and the defendant both in the box to confront each other and note their demeanour and did not swear them but heard them argue in support of their cases. It appears that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »