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.
Laxmi Industrial Bank, Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Roy Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.105
Graham, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge, 24-Parganas, and arises out of insolvency proceedings. The facts shortly stated are that on the 27th January, 1926, one Jewraj Khariwal made an application before the District Judge to be declared an insolvent and a Receiver was appointed. Subsequently an order of adjudication was recorded on the 3rd May, 1926. One of the creditors of the insolvent, the Laxmi Industrial Bank (Creditor No. 4), is the present appellant before us. It appears that this Bank had advanced, or at all events claimed to have advanced various sums of money to' the insolvent upon the security of certain ornaments which were deposited with the Bank. The Receiver wanted inspection of these articles and of the Bank's accounts. The Bank objected to produce them on the ground that it was a secured creditor. The learned Judge, however, considered that it was desirable that the articles should be inspected by the Receiver and he accordingly recorded an ...
Hriday Nath Sarkar Vs. Niroda Sundari Dasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal334
Mukerji, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was one for setting aside a compromise decree. The suit in which that decree was passed was title Suit 704 of 1922 in which defendant 1 of this suit was the plaintiff, defendant 2, who is the plaintiff's husband, was originally the sole defendant, and the plaintiff was added as defendant 2 therein on the objection of her husband that she was the owner of some of the properties involved.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has reversed that decision. Hence the appeal by defendant 1.3. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the compromise alleging that she is an illiterate pardanashin lady, that she sent a vakalatnama through her husband to be filed in the suit, but gave no authority to anybody, either verbally or in writing, that she was all along under the impression that the suit was pending and that she did not know anything about the compromise and so the same was not binding on her. The...
Shiba Kumari Debi Vs. Mt. Daksha Bala Dassi Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal296,110Ind.Cas.49
Duval, J.1. This rule has been obtained in a Small Cause Court suit. It appears that the zamindars, now opposite parties 1 and 2, had under them opposite parties 3 to 9 as their patnidars. The spatni was sold for arrears of rent under the patni regulation on 17th December 1919, and was purchased by a third party. The zamindars took out their dues from the purchase-money and the balance remained in deposit. Thereafter, the present petitioner who held a money decree against opposite party 3 attached the surplus sale proceeds on 4th June 1920, and realized his dues in full under that attachment on 25th September 1920. Some of the darpatnidars, however, on 17th November 1920, that is to say, eleven months after the patni sale brought a suit to have the patni sale set aside. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Nadia in January 1922 and that decree was confirmed by this Court. Under that decree, the zamindars, opposite parties 1 and 2 had to refund to the auction-purchaser the a...
Murlidhar Ram Narayan Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal387
Mukerji, J.1. The question involved in this Rule is one of considerable nicety and of some importance. The petitioner set up a flour mill in a room at premises No. 139-1, Russa Road, intending to work it by electricity without the previous written permission of the Corporation and was convicted under Section 385, Clause (1) read with Section 488, Clause (1), Calcutta Municipal Act, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rule 10 on 30th March 1927. Since the said conviction he, to quote the words of the 'sanitary officer, 'worked the mill from the 1st April onwards.' That officer further deposed thus:I inspected the mill in May and I found it working. After the last conviction the accused did not apply for permission under Section 885 nor has he got any. If the accused had applied, the permission would have been refused as the site and locality are unsuitable for the working of an electric mill.2. For this he was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 385, Clause (1) read ...
Nilmani Mondal Vs. Chekan Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal408a,108Ind.Cas.245
Duval, J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs brought a suit in respect of one and a half bighas of homestead land, their case being that the tenancy was created by acceptance of a kabuliyat from the predecessors of the defendants. Of the three defendants, defendant 1 denied that he had any interest, defendant 2 did not appear and defendant 3 contested saying that the land was not held under the plaintiff at all but held under one Hari Mondal at a different rental, from whom he had a potta which he produced. The first Court decreed the suit. He went into the evidence and found that the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of this land existed between the parties and the rent was due. He considered the fact that there had been a previous decree for rent in which a kabuliyat was mentioned, though the kabuliyat on which the plaintiff based the inception of the tenancy was not produced in the present suit. He also considered other points and then gave his decision. The learned Subordi...
K.S. Banerjee Vs. Jatindra Nath Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal475,108Ind.Cas.253
1. Appeal No. 144 is on behalf of the claimant 2. His learned advocate after the arguments were heard in the other two connected appeals, did not think it proper to press this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed but without, costs.2. Appeals Nos. 77 and 78 are by claimant 1. Two questions were pressed with reference to appeal No. 77. The first is as to on what basis the apportionment of the compensation should be made as between claimant 1 who is the landlord, and claimant 2, the tenant. The learned President capitalized the rent payable to the landlord for the unexpired portion of the lease which had to run for about 85 years from the date at the acquisition on a 6 per cent, basis and the reversion was valued on the basis of 6f per cent. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the basis taken by the learned President is against the evidence given by the experts on both sides. Mr. Johnston was examined on behalf of claimant 2, the tenant, and his evidence was that if the whol...
Nil Kamal Bhattacharjya and anr. Vs. Kamakshya Charan Bhattacharjya an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal539
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted for partition of certain homestead lands, to a one third share in which the plaintiffs had been declared entitled to in a previous suit between the parties. The trial Court made a preliminary decree for partition declaring the plaintiffs' right to get a one-third share in the lands and directing the appointment of a commissioner to effect the partition by metes and bounds. On an appeal being preferred by the defendants the Subordinate Judge discharged the preliminary decree aforesaid and orderedthat as the defendants are willing to buy the plaintiff' share and to pay a reasonable price of the land in suit, a value of the plaintiff' share would be made by a commissioner by a local inquiry unless the price be agreed to by the parties, and that share of the plaintiffs would be sold to the defendants under Section 4, Partition Act.2. The plaintiffs then appealed to this Court The decree of the Subordinate Judge was mad...
Bir Bikkram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Dasharath Rishi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal563
Mukerji, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits, Nos. 17 and 18, for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of two different homesteads. In Suit No. 17 the plaintiff's case was that the disputed homestead formerly belonged to their father who left behind him his three sons, the two plaintiffs and the pro forma defendant, as his heirs; that the two plaintiffs thus acquired two-thirds share and the pro forma defendant one-third share, all being in joint possession of the homestead though in separate occupation of the different huts therein : that they held the same under the Maharajah of Hill Tipperah; that in 1906 the Maharajah obtained a decree for ejectment against the three brothers but the decree was never, executed and the three brothers remained in possession as before; that subsequently one of the brothers, namely, the pro forma defendant, executed a kabuliyat in favour of the Maharajah for a term of five years from 1318 to 1322; that on the expiry of the said...
Hriday Nath Sarkar Vs. Niroda Sundari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.44
Mukerji, J. 1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was one for setting aside a compromise decree, The suit in which that decree was passed was Title Suit No. 704 of 1922 in which the defendant No. 1 of this suit was the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2, who is the plaintiff's husband, was originally the sole defendant, and the plaintiff was added as the defendant No. 2 therein on the objection of her husband that she was the owner of some of the properties involved.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision. Hence the appeal by the defendant No. 1.3. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the compromise alleging that she is an illiterate pardanashin lady, that she sent a vakalatnama through her husband to be filed in the suit but gave no authority to anybody either verbally or in writing, that she was all along under the impression that the suit was pending and that she did not know anything about the compromise and so t...
Muralidhar Ram Narayan Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.241
Mukerji, J. 1. The question involved in. this Rule is one of considerable nicety and of some importance. The petitioner set up a flour mill in a room at premises No. 139-1 Russa Road intending to work it by electricity without the previous written permission of the Corporation and was convicted under Section. 385, cl. (1) read with a. 488, cl. (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rg. 10 on the 30th March, 1927. Since the said conviction he, to quote the words of Sanitary Officer, ' worked the mill from the 1st April onwards'. That officer farther deposed thus: ' I inspected the mill in May and I found it working. After the last conviction the accused did not apply for permission under Section. 385 nor has he got any. If the accused had applied, the permission would have been refused as the site and locality are unsuitable for the working of an electric mill'. For this he was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section. 385, cl. (1) read with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »