Kolkata Court July 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.
Nadiar Chand GuIn Vs. Satish Chandra Sukal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal964
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit for the refund of the money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendants for the purpose of purchasing bricks which the defendants undertook to make for the plaintiff and to sell him at a certain rate. The agreement was that the plaintiff was to take delivery of the bricks at the brick-field of the defendants. It was stipulated that the bricks would be supplied within a certain date. The plaintiff complained in his plaint that the defendants had failed to perform their part of the contract and asked for the refund of the money deposited and for interest. The defendants pleaded that it was the plaintiff who was guilty of the breach of the contract as they had actually prepared the bricks and were always ready to give delivery to the plaintiff. They also pleaded that they called upon the plaintiff to accept the delivery but that the plaintiff bailed to do so, because the price of bricks had go...
i.J. Cohen Vs. BipIn Behari Sadkhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Cal137
Buckland, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of Mr. Immanuel Jacob Cohen who was a candidate for election to the Corporation of Calcutta at the last general election for an order that the election of his successful rival, Bipin Behary Sadkhan, as councillor for the non Mahomedan constituency of ward 13 on 16th March 1927, be declared null and void.2. The application is made under Sections 46, 47 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Sub-section 3, Calcutta Municipal' Act of 1923. Section 43 provides that if the validity of any election is questioned by reason of the commission of any corrupt practice by a candidate or his agent any person enrolled in the electoral roll may at any time within a specified period apply to the High Court. Under Section 47 if the High Court is of opinion that any corrupt practice specified in Part 1, Schedule 2, has been committed the election of the returned candidate shall be void. Schedule 2, Part. 1 (iii) provides that the procuring or abetting or attempting ...
i.J. Cohen Vs. BipIn Behary Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.145
Philip Buckland, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of Mr. Immanuel Jacob Cohen who was a candidate for election to the Corporation of Calcutta at the last general election for an order that the election of his successful rival, Bipin Behary Sadhukhan, as Councillor for the non-Muhammadan constituency of Ward No. 13 on 16th March, 1927, be declared null and void.2. The application is made under Sections 46, 47 and Schedule II, Part I, sub Section (3), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. Section 43 provides that if the validity of any election is questioned by reason of the commission of any corrupt practice by a candidate or his agent any parson enrolled in the electoral roll may at any time within a specified period apply to the High Court. Under Section 47 if the High Court is of opinion that any corrupt practice specified in Part I, Schedule II, has been committed the election of the returned candidate shall be void. Schedule II, Part I (3) provides that the procuring or abettin...
Mahoruddi Sheikh Vs. Safed Ali Khafila and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal103
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the Additional District Judge of Khulna reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bagerhat. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for a declaration that the title of the plaintiff and the pro-forma defendant 9 to the property in suit has not been affected by a rent sale held in April 1921.2. The facts are these : The plaintiff as well as defendant 9 were the owners of two nim howlas. These nim howlas were let out in ijara by the owners by a deed, dated 29th Jaishta 1319, by which the father of defendant 7 named Rahimulla Akan was granted a lease for eight years of these tenures which was to end in Chaitra 1326. Rahimulla sold his pattai right to defendant 1 by a kobala dated 1st Asar 1319, (Ex. 3). It is evident that by virtue of his purchase defendant 1 went into possession and paid rent to the superior landlords for two years. There was a condition in the patta of Rahimulla that he would pay the rent due to the superior l...
Jatindra Nath Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Trailakaya Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal142
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for rent with regard to a portion of the decree made by the Additional District Judge of Alipore affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiffs let out a large tract of land to the defendant in 1315. The land was jungle and the lease was a reclamation lease stipulating that the tenant was to pay rent at the rate of twelve annas per bigha for the lands under, cultivation. It was stated in the lease that the area demised was about 1,000 bighas. The suit was for arrears of rent from 1323 to 1326. The dispute was as regards the area actually under cultivation. It was found that the defendant had encroached upon a certain area of jungle lands within the khas mahal of the Government contiguous to the land of the plaintiffs which was demised to the defendant. The plaintiffs claim rent with regard to those lands also which actually belong to Government. The answer of the defendant is that he is not liable to pay rent to the...
A.T.K.P.L.M. Muthiar Chettiar Vs. Chidambaran Chetty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal686
Rankin, C.J.1. The sole question upon this appeal is whether execution of an ex-parte decree passed by this Court on the original side on 18th Mareh 1912 is barred by Article 183, Schedule 1, Lira. Act, 1908. The period of limitation is 12 years and when the decree has been 'revived' the 12 years have to be computed from the date of revivor. The present application for execution was made on 3rd September 1926 and it was not contended by the learned Advocate-General before us, though it is suggested in the memorandum of appeal; that the application of that date can be regarded as a mere renewal of an earlier application. Taking this as the relevant date the appellant contends that the decree was revived by an order dated 29th May 1924 so far as the original judgment-debtor, Subramania Chetty, is concerned.2. The relevant fact3 when disentangled are really there. On 21st March 1923 an application for execution was made by the present appellant as assignee of the decree. Whether this was ...
Rajendra Nath Mitra Vs. Nagendra Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal917
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Khulna reversing a decision of the learned Munsif at satkhira. The suit arises in this way. A zemindar employed one Rakhal Ghose as his naib and as his under-naib the appellant Rajendra Nath Mitra. Certain sums due from the collections out of which it appears that these Servants of the plaintiff were paid, were not handed over to the plaintiff. During the period when Rakhal Ghose was the naib he was responsible for handing over all moneys received by him or which, with reasonable diligence, might have been so received. The duty of Rajendra was to hand over that part of the collection money which he received to the naib, and in a suit by the plaintiff against Rajendra it would have been a good answer that he had received the money, and that he had handed it over as it was his duty to do, to the naib. Now as regards Rajendra the plaintiff's case is founded upon a furd on adjustment of accounts. All ...
Muthiar Chettiar Vs. Chidambaran Chetty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.404
Rankin, C.J.The sole question upon this appeal is whether execution of an ax parte decree passed by this Court on the Original Side, on the 18th March, 1912, is barred by Article 183 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The period of limitation is twelve years and, when the decree hasbeen 'revived', the twelve years have to be computed from the date of revivor. The present application for execution was made on the 3rd September, 1925. and it was not contended by the learned Advocate-General before us, though it is suggested in the memorandum of appeal, that the application of that date can be regarded as a mere renewal of an earlier application. Taking this, as the relevant date, the appellant contends that the decree was revived by an order, dated the 29th May, 1924, so far as the original judgment-debtor Subramania Chetty is concerned.The relevant facts, when disentangled, are really these. On the 21st March, 1923, an application for execution was made by the present ap...
Gohur Shaikh and ors. Vs. Shaikh Ahmed Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal113
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 6 against tho decision of the Subordinate Judge of Kbulna. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for ejectment of tho defendants with regard to a small area of land of 2i bighas which defendant 2 held under the superior landlords of the plaintiff, defendants 7 and 8, by a kabuliyat dated 4th of Magh 1309 B.S. This land with other lands constituted a holding which previously was held by the husband of defendant 2. The pro-forma defendants 7 and 8, who were the land ords, brought the holding to sale in execution of their rent-decree and purchased it themselves. They re-settled the disputed land with defendant 2 by accepting the kabuliyat I have already mentioned. Subsequently the pro-forma defendants 7 and 8 created an intermediate interest in favour of the plaintiff by granting him a sub-lease. The plaintiff's case is that by this transaction, he became the immediate landlord of defendant 2. Defendant 2 sold this dispu...
Bangshiram Mandal and ors. Vs. Prasannomoyi Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal166
1. These four appeals arise1 out of four suits for rent. The only question in controversy is whether, according to the terms of the patta by which rent was payable partly in cash and partly in kind by delivering a certain quantity of paddy, for non-delivery of the paddy, the present market price should be recovered by the plaintiff or the price stated in the patta. After stating that the rent will be payable in cash and in paddy, the words in the patta are to this effect:If for an unavoidable reason you are unable to pay the paddy its market price at the rate of Rs. 4 per pali should be paid. The amount is Rs. 34-5-0. The total price of the paddy together with road and public works cesses amounting to Rs. 50 should be paid according; to the kists given below and you will take a receipt after payment of the money. Then it follows:Except on the ground that all the lands of the mahal lay fallow, you shall not pay the price of the paddy.2. Then follow the other provisions which? it is unne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »