Kolkata Court May 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.
Levy Brothers and Knowles Ltd. Vs. Subodh Kumar Day and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal689,103Ind.Cas.659
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal in connexion with the voluntary winding-up of a company called Bhagat Brothers, Limited, and the appellants are Liverpool merchants called Levy Brothers and Knowles, Limited, and the main controversy is between the appellants and Mr. Ram Kumar Bhagat who was the managing director of the company in liquidation.2. It appears that the appellant company acted in connexion with certain consignments of jute shipped from Calcutta to England, It would appear that certain consignees had refused to accept the goods or meet the drafts, and that the appellants endeavoured to sell some of the jute which was thu3 rejected, and made certain advances to the company which is now in liquidation in that connexion. At all events, by April 1921, the appellants were claiming that in the end Bhagat Brothers, Limited, owed them some nine or ten thousand pounds upon that transaction.3. On the 6th of June 1921, a resolution for voluntary liquidation was duly passed. A Mr. S.K. D...
Sarat Chandra Rakshit Vs. Mon Mohan Panday
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal711
Majumdar, J.1. This application arises out of an application for revision by the defendant in a rant suit. The facts which give1 rise to the present application are as follows. The defendant-tenant held 13 jamas under the plaintiff. There was settlement and survey under the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the record was prepared by the settlement officer, and these 13 jamas were amalgamated and the rent shown to be Rs. 170 odd. After the final publication of the record an application was made by the landlord under Section 105. Bengal Tenancy Act, for assessment of fair and equitable rent. The tenant-defendant filed objections in that proceeding. The objection being that he did not hold one jama, but 13 separate jamas under the landlord, and the settlement officer was wrong in consolidating those jamas without his consent. The proceeding is still pending, the settlement officer not having come to any decision, whatsoever, upon that application. In the meantime, the landlord instituted a rent su...
M. Banerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal823
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This rule was issued by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Cuming and Mr. Justice Mallik, calling upon the District Magistrate of the 21 Parganas and also on the complainant Babu Anukul Chandra Mitter to show cause why the proceedings against the petitioner, who is a barrister-at-law and an advocate of this Court, now pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Diamond Harbour, should not be quashed on these grounds namely : first, that the petition of complaint did not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner, secondly, that on the allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint, no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner; and thirdly, that in view of the admission of the complainant that the alleged defamatory question was put by the petitioner in cross-examination on instructions from the mukhtear, no charge could in law be sustained.2. In order to understand the precise significance of the three grounds upon whic...
Ladha Singh Vs. Munshiram Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal605
Costello, J.1. In this undefended action the plaintiff is suing the defendant firm for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 24,598, being the amount of principal and interest due on the promissory note, dated 1st April 1924, and it is stated in para. 1 of the plaint that this promissory note was executed on 1st April 1924 in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 18,700 to be paid on demand with interest thereon 'at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem, by inadvertence wrongly stated in the promissory note as '1 per cent, per annum.' It appears that the promissory note was in fact to all intents and purposes given in renewal of a previous promissory note which was for the sum I think of something like Rs. 15,000 and the promissory note now sued on represents the amount of the plaintiff under the original promissory note together with the accrued interest thereon as provided in that note.2. It is stated on the face of the document now sued on that the rate of interest payable on the sum of ...
Rajaram Singh Vs. Pancha Deogi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal862
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of a certain sum of money borrowed by the guardian appointed by the Court for the minor defendant. The plaintiffs' case is that the minor had a business for supplying labour for certain works done under the Port Commissioners of Calcutta. The money was required for carrying on that business and the guardian of the minor entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs for the advance of money from time to time for the purposes of the business and for repayment in certain ways. It was also stipulated that the guardian should pay interest at the rate of 3 per cent, per month on the amount taken from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case is that the amount of the claim made in this suit was found due to them in December 1923, but as the defendant did not pay the amount, they ceased to make any further advance and the plaintiffs now sue for the amount of Bs. 5,846 odd for principal and interest at the rate...
Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal945,103Ind.Cas.827
Graham, J.1. These appeals are against orders of the Subordinate Judge, Backerganj; confirming orders of the Munsif, first Court, Barisal, and arise out of certain execution proceedings. The plaintiffs decree-holders, who are the appellants before us, applied for service of sale-proclamation under Section 165, Bengal Tenancy Act. The co-sharer landlords, who were pro forma defendants in the suit, objected on the ground that the decree was not a rent decree, the plaints in the rent suits not being in compliance with the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act. The trial Court gave effect to this contention, and that decision was on appeal affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. The plaintiffs-decree-holders have now appealed to this Court, and it has been urged on their behalf that the Courts below have misconstrued the decree holding erroneously that it is not a rent decree, that the plaint in the rent suit complied with the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act,...
H.R. Chamaria and Co. Vs. Sonatan Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal158
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the principal defendant, H.R. Chamaria & Co., who may shortly be described as Chamaria, against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Dacca dated 21st December 1925. The suit, as framed, was on the ground that Chamaria was a tenant-at-will under one J.B. Sukeas who was the owner of the property in question. The plaintiff had purchased the right, title and interest of the legal representative of J.B. Sukeas in execution of a money-decree on 2nd May 1919. He was put into symbolical possession by virtue of his purchase on 18th July 1919. The purchase was made in the benami of his son, named Bepin Behary Pal who was joined as defendant 2 in the suit. On 4th August 1919 the plaintiff served notice on Chamaria determining the tenancy under which Chamaria was alleged to have held the property in question as from the end of August 1919. The present suit was brought on 17th September 1919, and the claim was for rent at the rat...
Sushil Kumar Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Annada Prasanna Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal692,103Ind.Cas.860
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Pabna and Bogra, dated the 4th of August 1926, dismissing an appeal against an order made under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, should not be set aside. The facts which are necessary to be considered for the purposes of the Rule are these : The opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna against the petitioner 1, and the mother of petitioners 3 to 8 and of the late Sir Asutosh Chaudhuri (whose estate is now represented by the petitioner 2) and 47 other persons for partition of certain lands within certain touzis of Pabna and Rajshahi Coelectorates and for specifications of their shares therein with respeot to their zemindari and patni rights; 23 other persons, who were holders of a superior interest in the touzi concerned, were subsequently added as defendants to the suit.2. On the 2...
Nepra Vs. Sajer Pramanik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal763,103Ind.Cas.662
Mitter, J.1. The suit out of which the present second appeal arises was commenced by the plaintiff, now appellant, before the Munsif of Bogra for enforcing a mortgage bound executed by the defendants, now respondents. The defendants while admitting execution contend that the bond was not properly attested and the plaintiff is not entitled to a mortgage-decree and the claim for personal decree is barred by limitation as it was filed more than six years after due date of payment. The Munsif gave effect to the contentions of the defendant and dismissed the suit. Against the decision of the Munsif an appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Judge of Bogra and the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated the 20th of August 1924. Against this decision the present second appeal has been preferred to this Court by the plaintiff and it has been contended on his behalf by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the Courts below were wrong in dismissing the suit on th...
H.R. Chamaria and Company Vs. Sonaton Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.72
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the principal 'defendant H.R. Chamaria and' Company, who may shortly be described as Chamaria, against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dacca, dated the 21st December, 1925. The suit as framed was on the ground that Chamaria was a tenant at will under one J.B. Sukeas who was the owner of the property in question. The plaintiff had purchased the right, title and interest of the legal representative of J.B. Sukeas in execution of a money decree on the 2nd May, 19l9. He was put into symbolical possession by virtue of his purchase on the 18th July, 1919. The purchase was made in the benami of his son named Bepin Behary Pal who was joined as defendant No. 2 in the suit. On the 4th August, 1919, the plaintiff served notice on Chamaria determining the tenancy under which chamaria was alleged to have held the property in question as from the end of August, 1919. The present suit was brought on the 17th September, 1919...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »