Kolkata Court January 1928 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.
Ram Gopal Goenka Vs. Narayan Das Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal446,108Ind.Cas.590
1. Criminal Revision No. 952 of 1927. This Rule has been granted in regard to an order-made by the Deputy Magistrate of Howrah trader Section 144, Criminal P.C. The material portion of the order was in these terms:Whereas it appears from the petition filed on 21st July 1927 by Narain Das Chandra of 12 Shib Kristo Daw Lane, Calcutta, and the report dated the 26th July 1927 submitted thereupon by the Sub-Inspector of Golabari police station that Bam Gopal Goenka, of 20 Central Avenue, Calcutta, is holding a new market at Nos. 97 and 99 Haragunj Road, Sulkea, adjacent to the old Haragunj Bazar belonging to the Daw Babus of Jorasanko, Calcutta, for which a breach of the peace is apprehended, I do hereby prohibit the said Ram Gopal Goenka from holding new market at Nos. 97 and 99. Haragunj Road, as the holding of such market will lead to an imminent breach of the peace.2. Now the order was only in force for two months and it expired on the 27th September 1927. Prima facie, therefore, the ne...
Sadar Ali Karikar Vs. Sreemati Abeda Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal549,113Ind.Cas.153
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The facts found by the Courts below are that the mother of the girl, who is a defendant in the case gave her in marriage to the plaintiff in 1319 B.S., but the defendant exercised her 'option of puberty' given to her under the Sunni Mahomedan law, by which the parties are governed, in 1330 soon after she had attained puberty, by marrying defendant 5. In this view the plaintiff's suit for restitution has been dismissed inasmuch as the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and defendant 1 does not any longer exist. The learned vakil who appears for the appellant has streneously argued that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant having been found to have been contracted as a matter of fact, there should be a judicial decree confirming the repudiation of such marriage. The learned vakil's contention is met completely by the decisio...
Nibaran Chandra Dhara Modak and anr. Vs. Kristo Mohan Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal597
Page, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of premises let for residential purposes. Notice to quit was served upon the tenant, and if the tenant was liable to be ejected after notice to quit it is not contended that the notice was not duly served according to law. The defence set up was that the tenancy was governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act; that it was of an agricultural nature, and that the tenant had acquired a permanent right of occupancy. That defence was negatived by the lower appellate Court, and it was held that the tenancy was not of an agricultural nature but one for residential purposes, and that it was, therefore, outside the ambit of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and governed by the general law. Certain facts have been found, and must be taken to have been correctly found, by the lower appellate Court. The learned Subordinate Judge in the course of his judgment stated thatwe come to the conclusion that the defendant's tenancy is governed by the general law that prevailed ...
G.H.C. Ariff Vs. Jadu Nath Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal101
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the case are sufficiently set out in our order of remand of 10th February 1927. The two questions of fact on which we asked for the findings of the Court of appeal below have now been answered by that Court. Since the return of the records and the submission of the findings we have heard the parties again and we are thankful to the learned lawyers who represent them for the assistance they have given us in arriving at our conclusions on this somewhat difficult case. We now proceed to judgment.2. Amongst the findings of fact which the Courts below have concurrently arrived at in this case it is necessary to refer to one, viz., that in 1913 there was a parole agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff would grant a permanent lease to the defendant in respect of the land at a rental of Rs. 4 per catta, that is to say, at a. total rental of Rs. 80 per month. The two questions which we sent down for determination were : firs...
Promode Nath Sinha Roy and ors. Vs. Harishee Bagdhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal78,113Ind.Cas.833
Page, J.1. I have taken time to consider this case because it involves the construction of Order 18, Rule 5, 8 and 14, Civil P. C, and raises an issue of general interest. The suit was brought by the petitioners to recover Rs. 20, the value of a palm tree which the plaintiffs alleged that the opposite party defendant 1 had wrongfully cut down and sold. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the palm tree had been planted by defendant 1, and that he was entitled to sell it and retain the proceeds. The plaintiffs appealed. They contended that the decree of the trial Court could not stand because there was no legal evidence that the palm tree had been planted by defendant 1, as the evidence of the witnesses had not been recorded in the manner prescribed by Order 18.2. The material rules are : (The judgment quoted Rule 5, 8 and 14 of Order 18, and proceeded). The learned, Subordinate Judge affirmed the decree of the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs thereupon obtaine...
Mt. Machuni Bibi Vs. Jardine Menzies and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal399a,113Ind.Cas.18
1. This is a reference by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, under Section 27, Workmens Compensation Act (8 of 1923), and arises out of certain proceedings which are now pending before the Commissioner under the Act.2. The facts appear to be shortly as follows : Messrs. Jardine Menzies & Co. Architects and Building Contractors, undertook to do the ironwork in connexion with the erection of a garage in Central Avenue, and for that purpose entered into a contract with one Amulya Charan Aich. On 12fch December last, while a khalasi named Golab Khan, now deceased, the husband of the petitioner in this case, was at work on the premises and was engaged in hoisting a beam an iron column post fell upon him, resulting in fatal injuries. The widow of the deceased thereupon applied before the Commissioner for an order on Messrs. Jardine Menzies & Co. to deposit the sum of Rs. 900, as compensation for the death of her husband.3. Messrs. Jardine Menzies & Co. filed a Written state...
Abinas Chandra Majhi and anr. Vs. Pratul Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal448,108Ind.Cas.585
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of and for declaration of his title to a certain plot of land. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and that decision was affirmed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. The defendants have thereupon preferred this second appeal. The plaintiff's case was that the land in suit formed part of an occupancy holding which consisted of 30 bighas odd of land and bore a rental of Rs. 59 odd and it was held by one Yasin Mallick, that in execution of a decree for rent which was obtained; by the landlord against the said Yasin Mallick the said holding was put up to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff thereupon served a. notice under Section 167, Ban. Ten. Act, upon; the defendants alleging that the defendants were under raiyats and thereafter the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title to and for recovery of khas possession of ...
Jogendra Lal Sarkar Vs. Mahesh Chandra Sadhu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal22
Mukerji, J. 1. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of the present appeal, are these:The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was for recovery of minimum royalty (from kist Bhadra 1319 B.S. to kist 15th Joistha 1325 B. 8.) and coal rent (from Aswin 1319 to Aswin 1324) for some coal lands which the defendants are alleged to be holding under the plaintiff under a darpatni lease.. The lease is dated Falgun 1314 (= February 1908) being in respect of the three annas four pies share of touzi No. 12 lot Churulia, to the extent of which share the plaintiff had then the interest of a patnidar in the said lot under the zemindar, the Burdwan Raj, and is one for a period of 999 years. The defendants were at the date of the lease the patnidars in respect of the remaining share in the lot. They subsequently purchased at an auction two-thirds of the plaintiff's patni interest. The suit accordingly was for the amount due to the remaining one-third of the three annas four pies s...
Kanto Mohan Mullick Vs. John Carapiet Galstaun and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal547
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we are concerned with the ascertainment of the amounts for which Mr. Galstaun is entitled to proof in the insolvency of one Kanko Mohan Mullick. I propose that we should give our decision upon the questions of law which are involved and what is said with reference to the particular figures and amounts will be subjected to correction hereafter on the representation of the parties. The intention is that at the conclusion of this judgment the parties should have an opportunity of checking whether the figures mentioned in it are correct in accordance with the true working out of the principle which is to be applied. Now it appears that the insolvent Kanto Mohan Mullick and four of his brothers-entered into a transaction represented by a mortgage deed dated 28th June 1903. It appears that at this time a certain will was being propounded by the persons named as executors therein as the true will of their uncle, one Gopal Lal Seal, and although the contents and eff...
RamnaraIn Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Biswanath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.456
1. We think that in this matter the proper order to be passed is this: The examination of the petitioner (defendant No. 2 in the suit) will be postponed till the evidence on the side of the plaintiff is closed. Then if the petitioner does not offer herself for examination an the side of the defendants, the plaintiff will be at, liberty to examine her, as his witness. The learned Counsel for the petitioners gives an undertaking that she will be available at Dacca for examination by the plaintiff at the stage that we have indicated. By this order we do not mean to suggest; that he must necessarily be examined. The Rule is made absolute in these terms.2. The costs of the 'Rule will be costs in the cause. We assess the hearing fee at five gold mohurs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »