Kolkata Court April 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.
Akhoy Sardar Vs. Lalchand Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal96
1. It appears from an examination of the record that the order complained of was made without the first party being required to adduce evidence in support of their claim. The second party was called upon to show cause and they were required to adduce evidence in support of their denial of the right claimed by the first party. No doubt the second party did not appear to give evidence. But that did not get rid of the fact that the order complained of was made without the first party being called upon to give evidence to prove their claim.2. In this view of the matter the order cannot stand and must be set aside and the rule is accordingly made absolute....
Budhu Tatua Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal183
1. In this case we are of opinion that the rule must be made absolute. We have examined the record for ourselves, and we are satisfied that Mr. Mukherjee, who had second class powers and to whom the case was transferred, had no jurisdiction to try the case against the accused under Section 471. The evidence recorded by him could not be legally considered by the Magistrate to whom the case was ultimately transferred and who had jurisdiction in the matter. The result was that part of the evidence was recorded by a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction, and part of the evidence by a Magistrate who had jurisdiction. In this view the petitioner has made good the ground on which the rule was issued, and we, accordingly, set aside the order. But in the circumstances of the case we order a re-trial of the accused in accordance with law in that behalf....
Madan Gopal Daga Vs. Sachindra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal295
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson, made an order on 17th November 1926 by which he directed that two persons, namely, Madan Gopal Daga and H.F. Pilcher, the directors of the abovenamed company should appear before this Court for examination as to their dealings in respect of the affairs of the above company. This order which was made under the provisions of Section 195, Companies Act (7 of 1913) is the subject-matter of the present appeal. It is unnecessary for me to set out the facts involved in the present appeal because the same are to be found in my judgment, dated 22nd June 1925, printed on pp. 37 and 38 of the paper-book and in the judgment of Mr. Justice Pearson, dated 17th November 1926, printed on pp. 23 and 24 of the paper-book. A preliminary question has been raised as to whether the order made by Mr. Justice Pearson on 17th November 1926 is an appealable order.2. Now the section of the Indian Companies Act relating to appeals from orders...
Heeralal Agarwalla and Co. Vs. Joakim Nahapiet and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal647,103Ind.Cas.648
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson on the 3rd December 1926 by which he allowed an application made by the respondents to take off the file of this Court an award made under the rules of the Calcutta Baled Jute Association. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: By a contract in writing, dated the 6th November 1925, the respondents purchased from the appellants 3.000 bales of jute, delivery in December 1925 at Rs. 126 per bale of 400 lbs. net. The contract contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 17. It provided that in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the same should be referred to arbitration and that each party to the dispute would be at liberty to appoint one arbitrator. If either party failed to make the appointment within three clear working days after being called upon so to do by the other party, the arbitrator appointed by such other party should act as the sole arbitrator and proc...
Saraj Basini Debi Vs. Mohendra Nath Bhaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal636,103Ind.Cas.725
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the learned District Judge of the 24-Pergannas, dated the 10th of September 1926.2. On the 28th of August 1926 an application wa3 made to the learned District Judge asking thatyour Honour will be pleased to direct an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether Peary Mohan Roy of No. 46, Chakrabaria Road, North Bhowanipur, District 24-Pergannas, is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and pass necessary orders for the management of the estate of the lunatic and for the maintenance of the dependent members of his family by authorizing the Court of Wards to take charge of the whole estate or otherwise as the Court thinks just and proper.3. The application was made by Mohendra Nath Bhaduri and Brojendra Mohan Moitra being sons-in-law of the, alleged lunatic. The unfortunate gentleman, who was the subject of the proceedings, is a zamindar with considerable properties and is an advocate of this Cou...
Bejoy Lal Seal and ors. Vs. Benarasidas Khandelwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal99
Page, J.1. On 23rd August 1910 the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs let the premises in suit, now known as No. 7-2, Halliday Street, Central Avenue, Calcutta, to the predecessor of defendants 1 and 2 for a term of 61 years. On 7th May 1923 defendants 1 and 3 mortgaged the said lease by way of sub-demise to defendant 3. On 20th August 1923 the plaintiff through his solicitors informed the defendants that he regarded the lease of 23rd August 1910 as having been determined by reason of the execution of the mortgage of 7th May 1923, which he alleged operated as a breach of the sixth covenant in the lease to be performed by the lessees. On 30th June 1925 defendants 1 and 2 became insolvent, and subsequently, pursuant to an order of Court, the official assignee in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind was added as a party defendant.2. Two defences have been raised by defendants, one involving an issue of fact, the other an issue of law. The issue of fact is whether by the acce...
Dwarka Math Chakrabarti Chowdhury Vs. Atul Chandra Chakrabarti Chowdhu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal108
Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree passed by the Sub-Judge, 2nd Court, Mymensingh, amending the decree passed by his predecessor in the suit brought by the plaintiff. We learn that the plaintiff commenced this action in the Munsif's Court but the valuation of the suit was found to be over Rs. 5,000 and it came eventually before the Sub-Judge. It is said that defendants 4 and 5 were owners of some parcels of land in villages Gangatiya aud Saidpur lying within Kharija taluk No. 1760/28 of the Mymensingh Collectorate and that they were in exclusive possession of some of the plots and were in possession of some shares in the other plots with the other defendants 1 and 3 who owned the remaining shares. The plaintiff alleged that defendants 4 and 5 sold half of what they had in these plots to the plaintiff by a kobala dated 26th June 1915, but the said defendants subsequently colluded with defendants 1 and 3 and allowed the latter to take possession of these lands.2. The pl...
Jnanendra Mohan Bhadhury and anr. Vs. Profullananda Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal812
Mukherji, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Second Subordinate Judge of Hoogbly on 5fch and 28th May 1925. By this order the learned Subordinate Judge allowed an appeal that had been preferred to his Court by a defendant in a suit which had been decreed ex parte and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court remanded the suit for further trial upon certain terms and conditions. The plaintiffs have now preferred this appeal. It appears that after several adjournments granted to the defendant on applications made by him for that purpose and upon the condition that he would pay the costs of those dates the case was eventually fixed for 26th February 1924. On that day the plaintiffs were ready but the defendant again put in an application asking for an adjournment on the ground that he had been attacked with pox and that, therefore, he was unable to appear in Court on that day. An order or adjournment was made on condition that the defendant wo...
Gohur Bepari Vs. Ram Krishna Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal760
Mukerji, J.1. One Radha Madhab Saha instituted a title suit No. 754 of 1920, against Gohur Ali Bepari and others. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the 30th August 1920. There was an appeal to the District Judge who allowed it on the 29fch March 1922. Some of the defendants preferred a second appeal to this Court making the plaintiff and the other defendants respondents therein. During the pendency of the appeal Radha Madhab Saha, the plaintiff, died. The appellants in this appeal obtained a rule to show cause why the abatement of this appeal in consequence of the death of the said Radha Madhah Saha should not be set aside and his heirs substituted in his place. The rule was discharged on the 3rd April 1925. The appeal was thereafter put up for hearing and on the 21st May 1925 the following order was passed:The sole respondent having died and no substitution having bean made in his place, the appeal abates and is dismissed without costs as the respondent has not appeared.2. A dec...
Syed Mahamad Maliha Vs. Choudhuri Mahammad Ismail Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal766
Roy, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Bakarganj setting aside his previous order directing the sale by the Receiver of 3 Karsha holdings which were held by Shah Mafazzal Hossain who had been adjudged insolvent, and ordering the exclusion of these properties from the schedule of the insolvent's property. The appellant is the contesting creditor. It appears that the insolvent made an agreement with the appellant for the sale of these very properties (in which the insolvent had an eight annas share) for Rs. 2,000 and he took Rs. 900 as earnest money. The sale was not completed. The insolvent was unable to pay the appellant but he gave him a handnote. The appellant brought a suit on the handnote and obtained a decree on 9th May 1917. He applied for execution on 8th May 1920.The insolvent put in an objection under Section 47 Civil P.C. alleging payment of Rs. 801 in cash. The objection was disallowed on 27th November 1920, and the application for execution also...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »