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.
DIn Dayal Shah Vs. Ram Babu Minor, Represented by the Deputy Registrar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.363
1. This application in revision is on, behalf of one Din Dayal Shah against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated the 3rd September, 1927. The facts appear to be that a portion of premises No. 2, Circular Garden Reach Road, was acquired and a certain amount is now in deposit with the Tribunal as compensation therefor. The property stood in the name of one Muralidhar Shah, The petitioner before us says that Muralidhar Shah was his elder brother and karta of a joint Mitakshara family including their children. The petitionerbrought a suit in the Original Hide of this Court for partition of the joint properties in that suit (No. 2470 of 1925), a Receiver was appointed in respect of the joint properties by this Court in its Original Side. With the consent of the parties, namely, the petitioner Din Dayal who was the plaintiff and Muralidhar who was the defendant, the Official Receiver of this Court was appointed Receiver in that suit of all the joint moveable ...
Jatindra Nath Ray Vs. Nagendra Nath Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal289
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of certain properties on the allegation that the is the preferential heir of the last male owner and is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the properties as the next reversioner. The properties originally belonged to one Rameswar Ray who died on the 6th June 1882 leaving a widow Mankumari Barmanya pregnant with child. She gave birth to a posthumous son on the 31st December 1882. That son died on the 7th March 1883, leaving his mother Mankumari as his sole heir. This lady was in possession of a Hindu widow's estate till her death on the 5th June 1916. A controversy then arose as to whether the plaintiff and his two brothers, pro-forma defendants 3 and 4, were the preferential heirs or the defendants. The two parties are related in this way : the plaintiff and his brothers are the mother's sister's sons of the infant who was the last male owner, the propositus. The defendants are the sons of the father's half-sis...
HefajuddIn Talukdar Vs. Nabi Nasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal416,108Ind.Cas.246
Duval, J.1. In this appeal, the main point which was argued on behalf of the appellant was that certain documents which were not tendered in evidence at the first trial, after a review of that trial had been obtained, were admitted in evidence in the second trial. It appears that the reviewing Court by its order did not exclude the trial Court from considering these documents at the re-hearing and by its order granting the review ordered that the case should be re-heard. Admittedly, these documents were relevant and admissible. Whether they ought to have been admitted or not at the discretion of the Court at the re-hearing was a matter for the Court to decide and I am not prepared to hold that these proceedings would be vitiated, because these documents at the discretion of the trial Court were used as evidence at the re-hearing. Moreover, the learned Judge in the lower appellate Court, apart altogether from those documents, relied upon certain dakhilas which were at any rate some evid...
Bhabesh Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Shyama Sundari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal399,108Ind.Cas.255
Page, J.1. The suits out of which these appeals arise were brought to recover arrears of rent. The issue which fell for determination was whether the rent payable was at the rate alleged by the tenants or at the rate alleged by the plaintiff. The difference between the two rates is equivalent to a sum which at some remote period was collected as an abwab. Since 1865 the tenants have paid, and have received rent receipts, upon the footing that the rent payable was at the full rate claimed by the landlord; and there is a finding of fact by the lower appellate Court (having regard to the evidence adduced on the one side and on the other) that there was a valid agreement proved between the landlord and the tenants that they would pay the sum which was made up of rent proper and abwabs as consolidated rent. That us a finding of fact which we are not prepared to disturb in second appeal. The learned vakil on behalf of the appellant, however, has urged that the rate of rent is concluded in fa...
Jatindra Nath Roy Vs. Nagendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1928
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.246a
B.B. Ghose, J.1.This appeal is by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of certain properties on the allegation that he is the preferential heir of the last male owner and is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the properties as the next reversionary. The properties originally belonged to one Rameawar Roy who died on the 6th of June, 1882, leaving a widow Mankumari Barmanya pregnant with child. She gave birth to a posthumous son on the 31st of December, 1882. That son died on the 7th of March, 1883, leaving his mother Mankumari as his sole heir. This lady was in possession of a Hindu widow's estate till her death on the 5th of June, 1916. A controversy then arose as to whether the plaintiff and his two brothers, pro forma defendants Nos. 3 and 4, were the preferential heirs or the defendants. The two parties are related in this way. The plaintiff and his brothers are the mother's sister's sons of the infant who was the last male owner, the propositus. The defendants are the sons of t...
Mohar Ali Vs. Abdul Karim Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1928
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.742
1. This is one of the most preposterous eases which shows that it was absolutely necessary to enact something in the nature of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. In this case the principal defendants borrowed Rs. 400 on mortgage of properties which admittedly are very valuable. The interest charged was Rs. 7-8 per cent. per mensem which would come up to nearly 100 per cent. per annum with annual rests. The result is that within 4 years, as the Subordinate Judge observes, Rs. 400 principal swelled up to over Rs. 7,500. The Subordinate Judge says the rate is monstrous, we unhesitatingly endorse that opinion. Mr. Roy for the assignee of the mortgagee who is the appellant before us contends that that is the usual rate of interest in that part of the country. If that is so nothing can be more deplorable than the fact asserted, and in every such case the Courts would be justified in rigorously applying the Usurious Loans Act in that part of the country, whenever such a course is justified. The ev...
Lachmi Chand Jhawar Vs. BipIn Behari Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal644,115Ind.Cas.356
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a petition was filed on 27th April 1927 for the adjudication -in insolvency of one Bipin Behary Ghose. The act of insolvency alleged was that the debtor had allowed certain premises to be sold on 28th January 1927 in execution of a decree for the payment of money. It appears that the facts are that on 13th July 1926 the present creditor made an application for adjudication of the present debtor. That adjudication order was made on. 23rd July. But an application for review having been made and an appeal taken both from the adjudication order and from the order dismissing the application for review the whole matter was remanded in appeal. That ultimately came before Page, J. who in March 1927 held that no act of insolvency had been made out and rescinded the adjudication order. The act of insolvency now alleged is a sale on 28th January 1927. It was a sale in a proceeding in which the Official Assignee had been added as a party in view of the adjudication orde...
Ramshai Mull More Vs. Joylall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal840
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order setting aside an adjudication in insolvency. The adjudication order itself is dated 23rd November 1926 and the petition upon which that order was pronounced was filed on 13th September of that year. The petitioning creditor was the firm of Laehmi Narain Ramchunder and the act of insolvency alleged was that the debtor had suffered his one-third share in a certain property, No. 18, Machua Bazar Street, to be attached for a period of 21 days in execution of a certain award. It appears that on 6th May of that year an award had been given by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce against the debtor for a sum of Rs. 15,250. This award was filed in this Court on 12th May and at the time the insolvency petition was presented an attachment had been subsisting since 20th May, by virtue of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, namely, the provision of Section 15 which says that an award on a submission, on being filed shall be enforceable as if it we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›