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.
Jatindra Nath Dalal Vs. Narendra Nath Dalal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal152
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is one of the most curious judgments I have come across in the course of my experience. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition and accounts and other reliefs against several persons. Defendant 1 was alleged to be primarily liable. But the plaintiff stated that defendant 1 was at the time of the plaint lying ill at Benares, according to his information, and he did not know whether he was alive or dead at the time, and, therefore, as an additional precaution, the plaintiff had joined his heirs as defendants in the suit. Soon after the filing of the plaint, one of the beirs informed the Court that defendant 1 had died the day previous to the day the plaint was filed. Thereupon, the plaintiff asked for an amendment of the plaint by striking out the name of defendant 1 from the list of defendants and for putting in the name of defendant 1 in the body of the plaint wherever the words 'defendant 1' occur. There were other prayers for amendment with which we are not c...
(Sheikh) Salim Vs. Hajira Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal325,110Ind.Cas.347
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of 13th May 1926 passed by the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Dacca, by which he remanded the case for re-hearing before the learned Munsif of Dacca. The suit was brought to recover damages upon the footing that the defendant had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the land of which the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. The trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable without the establishment of the plaintiffs' title to the property, and upon that preliminary issue passed a decree dismissing the suit on 6th November 1925. The plaintiffs appealed, and by the order under appeal of 13th May 1926 the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court, and remitted the case to the trial Court to be re-heard upon the merits. The case having been returned to the trial Court was re-heard on 7th August 1926. It appears that the defendant applied for an adjournment of the case, and that at the retrial the suit was cont...
Tricumchand Dansing Vs. Chief Revenue Authority of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal837
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of my learned brother Pearson, J., upon certain questions stated for the opinion of the Court under Section 51, Income-tax Act, 1918. The assessees in this case complained of the amount at which they had been assessed for excess profits duty and they applied to this Court and obtained an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Chief Revenue Authority to state certain questions for the opinion of the Court. The Chief Revenue Authority has stated those questions. In the result it appears that it is necessary for this Court to give its opinion upon the first of the questions so stated. That question is thus framed:Whether the time prescribed by Section 26, Act 7, of l918 is to be reckoned from the original demand or from the making of the revised assessment whereby refund was ordered on revision of assessment revised by the Board on 2nd December 1921.2. That question becomes more or less intelligible on consideration of the following ...
Belvedere Jute Mills Ltd., Chaitram Sagormull Vs. Hardwarimull and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal853
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, an award was made on the 3rd August 1923 and it was filed in the High Court under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act on the 31st August 1923. There was an assignment on the part of the company in whose favour the award was made to the present respondents on the 15th December 1926. In January 1927, the respondents filed a tabular statement and proceeded to issue notices in execution under Rule 16, Order 21, Civil P.C. These having been served, the matter came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Gregory on the 26th of April 1927 and it was objected that the application in execution was time barred because Article 181, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, applied, there being no other article which applied. The learned Judge has held that Article 183, Limitation Act, is applicable and that is the question before us.2. There can be no doubt that the terms of Section 15, Arbitration Act, do not mean that an award shall be or shall be deemed to be a decree and Mr....
Jamiruddee Naskar and anr. Vs. Basanta Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal47
Cammiade, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of six bighas and 15 cottas of land comprised in a tenancy the exact nature of which has not been ascertained by either of the learned Courts below. The plaintiff sued on the allegation that this tenancy was an under-raiyati tenancy, and that the defendants were trespassers who had purchased the interests of the late tenants and had acquired no right by their purchase. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit but the Court of appeal below decreed it. The facts are as follows:The tenancy had originally been held by one Asmatulla who had several sons and daughters. After Asmatulla's death the tenancy seems to have been held, 'according to the case of both parties, by two of Asmatulla's sons, Samiruddi and Kobbani. The first defendant is another son of Asmatulla and the second defendant; is a grandson by another son; and these two defendants purchased the tenancy from Samiruddi and Kobbani by two...
Midnapore Zemindari Co. Ltd. Vs. Shib Narayan Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal137
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought for a sepatni mehal called Monoharpur. The plea of the defendants was that the entire rent should be suspended on account of the plaintiffs having failed to deliver possession of certain portions of the lands demised. This plea found favour with the Munsif who dismissed the entire suit. The plaintiffs appealed against that decree and the Subordinate Judge has made a partial decree in favour of the plaintiffs by allowing an apportionment of the rent of the lease hold properties in proportion to the lands found in possession of the defendants. This case is a rather peculiar one. It appears that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs created the sepatni lease in question of the mouzah called Monoharpur in the year 1857. The sepatnidars gave an ijara of the properties to their landlords in 1866. The ijara was to last for 15 years. In 1867 the original sepatnidars sold their interest to the defendant's predecessors. Prom 1867 the ...
Gulzar Mondal and ors. Vs. Trailakyanath Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal125
Roy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage suit dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Maldah. The plaintiff Gulzar Mondal (who died subsequently) and his cousins Sabektulla (the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 4, 5 and 6) and Sariatulla (the predecessor of defendants 7, 8, 9 and 10) lived in joint mess and had joint properties including a money-lending business which was carried on at several places. According to the plaint Sariat was the sole karta or manager till his death which happened in Baisakh 1315 B.E. After his death his son, defendant 4, was selected as the karta 'as he was smart and intelligent.' It appears that he was the karta at Rahanpur. The principal defendants 1 and 2 used to borrow money from the Mondal family. In 1313 B.E. they executed a mortgage-deed called a karbarnama in favour of Sariat as security for the loans up to a certain amount, After Sariat's death defendants 1 and 2 executed on 5th Magh 1315, corresponding to 11th January 1909, a fresh karbar...
Pauline White Vs. S.W. White
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal513
Costello, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioner in a suit for judicial separation who had obtained an order for alimony pendente lite. The application is made on behalf of the petitioner for an order that the respondent should carry out the terms of an order made by Gregory, J., dated 7th April 1927 whereby he was ordered to pay certain sums to the petitioner by way of alimony pendente lite, and the application further asks that in default of compliance with the order to pay the respondent be committed to jail as for a contempt of Court.2. On the previous occasion when the matter came up before me, by consent of counsel for the respective parties it was agreed that the order made by Gregory, J., should be varied and that in future the respondent should pay to the petitioner's solicitors the sum of Rs. 400 or rather the equivalent of it in English money, that is to say, 30, by delivering to them a cheque upon an English bank on the 7th of each month. That agreement wil...
S.N. Banerjee Vs. Huseyn Shahied Suhrawardy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal772
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Buckland, J. whereby he refused to restore a suit which was decreed ex parte. It appears that a newspaper of which defendant 1 was the editor and the present appellant defendant 2 was the printer published an article on 27th July 1926 referring to the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that the article is defamatory and, on 8th November 1926, ha brought a suit for damages against the editor and the printer. On 6th December, summons was served upon the printer. It appears so have been established that the summons was not served upon the editor. The printer says that he handed over the summons to be attended to by the manager of the newspaper but that owing to the fact that the summons was not served on the editor or owing to some independent negligence, the manager took no steps, though he had promised to do so, to have the suit defended on the part of the printer. It is necessary that it should be understood what happened upon this default...
Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Shib Narayan Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.741
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought for a sepatni mehal called Monoharpur. The plea of the defendants was that the entire rent should be suspended on account of the plaintiffs having failed to deliver possession of certain portions of the lands demised. This plea found favour with the Munsif who dismissed the entire suit. The plaintiffs appealed against that decree and the Subordinate Judge has made a partial decree in favour of the plaintiffs by allowing an apportionment of the rent of the lease-hold properties in proportion to the lands found in possession of the defendants. This case is a rather peculiar one. It appears that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs created the sepatni lease in question of the mouzah called Monoharpur in the year 1857. The sepatnidars gave an ijara of the properties to their landlords in 1866, The ijara was to last for 15 years. In 1867 the original sepatnidars sold their interest to the defendant's predecessors. From 1867, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »