Kolkata Court August 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.
Salam Chand Kannyaram Vs. Joogul Kissore Ramdeo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal462
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an order was made on 26th August 1925 appointing a Receiver and directing that the defendant firm do make over to the Receiver the books of account of their firm for a certain year and the hatchittas standing in the benami name of one Ramdeo's brother Baij Nath Motilal and those executed by various debtors of the defendant firm in acknowledgment of their debts. It was further ordered that the defendant firm do makeover to the Receiver or to this Court to be placed to the credit of the suit all moneys realized by them in contravention of a certain order. By another order made on 5th July 1926, it was ordered that the Official Receiver be appointed Receiver in the suit under the order already mentioned and that the said Ramdeo do stand committed to the custody of the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail for contempt of Court for having failed to make over to the said Receiver the hatchittas mentioned in para. 22 of the said petition and that a warrant do issu...
Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer Vs. Jahey Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal228
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government under the provisions of 8. 417, Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal passed ay the First Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh in a case in which the two accused before us were charged before him and a jury under Section 395, I.P.C. The case is in many ways an extraordinary one, and it is desirable, therefore, to set out the facts briefly.2. The two accused, Jahey Sheikh and Katua alias Jabed Ali, were charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. They were duly committed to take their trial in the Sessions Court. The first Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, Mr. N.V.H. Symons, tried the case with the aid of a jury. On the 9th March 1927 the trial was concluded and the jury were directed to retire and bring in their verdict. What happened thereafter is set out below as appears from the record:Q. As regards both accused are you unanimous.A. Yes.Q. What is your verdict?A. Guilty under Section 395, ...
Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad Vs. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal965
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the respondent for recovery of the balance of Road and Public Works Cesses from the appellant payable for four years viz., 1326 to 1329 B.S., with damages at 25 per cent.2. The defendant in this suit, now appellant, is the patnidar under the plaintiff, now respondent, who is the zemindar of the mahal in suit and the terms of the patni are to be found in a kabuliat to some of the terms of which referent will be made later.3. The plaintiff alleges that out of the cesses payable by the defendant only a smaller sum has been realized and the plaintiff consequently sues for the excess cesses.4. The defence of the defendant substantially was (i) that the plaintiff was realizing cesses at the legal rate without adverting to a clause in the kabuliat which runs to the following effect:If there be any demand from the state on the zemindari for any new amount on account of rent or revenue payable to the king or if any order is passed, I shall abide ...
Phanindra Krishna Dutt Vs. Raja Promatha Nath Malia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal421
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a rule in revision obtained by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to show cause why an order should not be set aside whereby the defendant was ordered to be examined on commission at his own request.2. It appears that the suit was launched in 1925 for the recovery of some Rs. 49,000 as remuneration due for work done as a managing contractor of a colliery and that the defendant had paid Court-fee on a counter claim for some two and half lacs, on account of damages alleged to have been caused to the defendant's colliery by the negligence of the plaintiff. The issues which were settled in 1925 contained a great many matters arising out of the counter claim.3. In April 1927 the defendant put in a petition that he might be examined on commission on the ground that he was suffering from lumbago which made it impossible for him to remain in the same position for more than ten minutes. He filed a medical certificate to that effect. The plaintiff objected. He says t...
Jogendra Chandra Mukherji and anr. Vs. Monmohini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal156
Roy, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 in the suit which has been decreed in the plaintiffs' favour by both the Courts below The suit concerns a plot of homestead land belonging to defendant 6. The plaintiff obtained a nim howla patta from the latter, but on the next day the defendants took possession of the land and the plaintiff was obliged to bring this suit for khas possession and establishment of her title. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that there was a prior contract of sale by virtue of which defendants 1-5 were put in possession. It appears that defendant 2 is also a mortgagee from the lessor. The lessor supported the defence. Both Courts came to the conclusion that the defence is untrue and decided the suit in the plaintiffs' favour. Defendants 1 and 2 have come up now on appeal to this Court. The learned vakil appearing for them contends, in the first place, that there being a subsisting mortgage no decree should have been passed without safeguarding ...
Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bisweswar Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal371
Mukerji, J.1. The Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and the India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. have obtained this Rule to show cause why the decree passed against them by the Small Cause Court Judge of Khulna should not be set aside.2. Mulji Sicka and Co. dispatched six bags of mohini biri on 15th August 1925 from Jagannath Ghat to Khulna for carriage by the dispatch service of the two companies. The consignment was deliverable to Bisweswar Kundu who not having received the same instituted the suit claiming Rs. 380, which was made up of Rs. 314-8-0 as the price of goods, Rs. 31, as damages at 10 per cent., and Rs. 36, as interest, deducting a remission of Rs. 1-8-0 from the total. The suit has been decreed in full with costs.3. The grounds urged in support of the Rule are mainly four. To deal with these grounds it is necessary to set out a few facts, which are not disputed. Enquiries were made about the goods on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff not having received de...
Rosonali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal787
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In all these seven appeals the point has been taken that the trials in the sessions Courts, out of which these appeals have arisen, have been bad inasmuch as the provisions of Section 276, Criminal P.C., and of the other relative sections were not complied with. In other words, it is contended in these appeals that the constitution of the Courts for the trial of the accused in these cases has not been in accordance with law.2. Before we deal with this point it maybe desirable to set out briefly the facts involved in each of these appeals. In appeal 111 of 1927, the accused were charged under Section 148, I.P.C. There was also a charge against accused 1 and 4 under Section 324, I.P.C. Accused 2 was further charged with an offence under Section 304, I.P.C. It is pointed out in the affidavit of Meserali which has been filed before us, that out of the number of persons summoned under Section 326, Criminal P.C., only five persons attended at the time of the commencement of ...
Krista Kishore Bose Vs. Pancharam Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal341
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a point of practice. It appears that there was a maortgage suit which was decreed ex parte on 25th November 1925. The defendant who is the applicant before us to-day brought his application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. on 5th January 1927 to have that ex-parte decree set aside and the suit restored for hearing. That application having been filed and registered on 12th February it appears from the order sheet the case was adjourned to 5th March 1927. In the meantime a petition supported; by an affidavit was made by the defendant asking for his examination on commission, but in the end the case was adjourned to 26th March for hearing and again to 30th April and the present applicant filed a petition with a medical certificate and again prayed for his examination on commission on the ground of illness. This time the application was granted on the term that the execution of the commission would not be a ground for any further adjournment and the parties were di...
Jaynal AbedIn and ors. Vs. Hyder Ali Khan Pani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal441
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh, dated 11th December 1924, which affirmed a decision of the Munsif of Tangail dated 28th February 1923.2. The suit in which this appeal arises was commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rents and cesses together with damages for the years 1327 and 1328 B.S. from the defendants who are three in number at the rate of Rs. 135-8-0 per year. The plaintiff alleges that defendant 1 was the original holder of the durputni to which the suit relates and that defendants 2 and 3 are transferees from defendant 1 of the durputni interest and they have consequently been impleaded in the suit.3. The defence of the defendants, who filed separate written statements, is substantially this:That plaintiff is not entitled to recover any rent as the defendants have been kept out of possession of two mouzas, Haria and Gajaria, compirised in the durputni and that the rate at which the rent has been claimed cannot...
Jnanandra Nath Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Jitendra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal275
1. One Kailas Chandra Mukherji died in November 1910 leaving a will dated 28th August 1908. He left two sons, Jnanendra and Debendra, by his first wife and four sons, Jagendra, Jatindra, Jitendra and Jonendra by his second wife. He also left a daughter Ashalata by his second wife, who was unmarried at the time of his death. Jnanendra, Debendra and Jogendra had attained majority at the date of the will, and Kailas Chandra Mukherji appointed all the said three sons as executors. Jogendra, however, died during the lifetime of his father, a few months before the death of the latter. No probate was taken of the will, but on 17th January 1921, there was an agreement between the first party consisting of Jnanendra and Debendra and the second party consisting of Jatindra, Jitendra and Jonendra by which the disputes between them were referred to the arbitration of three gentlemen, Babu Nanda Lal Pal, Babu Hari Charan Chatterji and Babu Kanti Chandra Ghose. The arbitrators made their award on 25...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »