Kolkata Court February 1928 Judgments
Suresh Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Kanti Chandra Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal436,110Ind.Cas.715
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas in a suit in ejectment. The appellant became the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises, 17/2-A, Kundu Lane, Bhowanipur, in the suburbs of Calcutta, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50, in 1920. Subsequently the parties went to the Rent Controller to fix the standard rent of the premises under the Rant Act of 1920 which was then in-force. The rent was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 39 a month. On 14th. March 1925 the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant asking him to vacate the premises by the end of March 1925. The defendant not having vacated within the time allowed to him, the present suit was instituted on 13th May 1925 for ejectment against the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the defendant was protected from ejectment under the provisions of Section 11, Rent Act. This order was pronounced on 30th July 192Q. There was an appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Bama Charan Das Vs. Gadadhar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal322,121Ind.Cas.675
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts upon which this appeal is founded are that the plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for recovery of possession on establishment of title to two cottas of land. During the progress of the suit it was referred to the arbitration of three gentlemen on an application signed by the pleaders of the parties. The arbitrators filed their award on 25th July 1925, the effect of which was to allow the plaintiff's claim in a modified form. On 4th August, the plaintiff objected to the award on the ground that his pleader had no authority under the vakalatnama to apply for arbitration and he also made charges of misconduct against the arbitrators. The Munsif by his order, dated 15th September 1926, held that the pleader had no authority under the vakalatnama filed in the suit to appoint arbitrators and refer the matter in dispute to them. In this view he set aside the award and fixed 10th November 1925, for the hearing of the suit. On that date the defendant did not appear an...
Tag this Judgment!Tarak Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Moti Lal Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal559,117Ind.Cas.677
1. The application for execution out of which this appeal arises was dismissed on the ground that it contravened Order 21, Rule 15, Civil P.C. We do not see how it contravenes that rule. The decree was made in favour of the applicants and the pro forma defendant in the original suit for a lamp sum of Rs. 1,000. On a previous occasion it was held by the Subordinate Judge that the-application was barred by limitation. On appeal to this Court that judgment was set aside, and it was held that the application was not barred as it was a joint decree that was sought to be executed by the other decree holders within the period of limitation The matter was sent back for the decision of the other questions in dispute. This time the Subordinate Judge has held that the applicants have done what is forbidden by Order 21, Rule 15. Order 21, Rule 15 does not forbid anything to be done. It is rather an enabling rule. It enables one or more of the persons in whose favour a decree has been passed to app...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Himmat Ali Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal720,117Ind.Cas.557
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises from an order refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a suit on a mortgage brought on 20th December 1924. After the suit had been pending for some time, an application was made by the defendants on 4th November 1925 for further time. The application was ostensibly on the ground of illness of witnesses and so forth. That application was rejected. The plaintiff also filed an application which was also rejected. Upon that the defendants' pleader alleged that he had no further instructions and retired from the case. The plaintiff proceeded to prove his case ex-parte and obtained a decree. The present application was made on 2nd December 1925 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Subordinate Judge has stated his grounds for rejecting the application. From that order, the present appeal has been presented.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeallies. The ground is that the application udder Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., was ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Fatima Khatun Vs. Fazlal Karim Mea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal303,110Ind.Cas.52
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Mahomedan lady for a declaration that the marriage tie between herself and her husband has been dissolved. Her case was that she was married to one Fazlul Karim Mea on the 17th August 1905, that a kabilnama was executed by the defendant in her favour in which he agreed not to remarry during the lifetime of the plaintiff and not to illtreat her. He further contracted not to cause her pain of body or mind, not to desert her, to maintain her wherever she lived of her own choice, not to misconduct himself and always to behave properly; there was a further agreement that if he violated any of these terms embodied in the kabilnama the plaintiff would have the power to divorce herself from her husband. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had violated all these terms and that in the exercise of that power she divorced herself from her husband on the 10th April 1921 by uttering the word 'Talak' three times. She further executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhoy Kumar Ghose Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal320,114Ind.Cas.139
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 406 read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. Section 406 says:No person shall directly or indirectly himself or by any other person on his behalf sell, expose or hawk about for sale or manufacture or store for sale any food or drug which is adulterated or misbranded.2. According to the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused was found by the Food Inspector unloading a consignment of 16 tins at the Sealdah Railway Parcel Office. One of these tins which the petitioner said contained ghee appeared to the Food Inspector to contain something else. He accordingly seized the consignment and took it to the Municipal Office. Thereafter, he purchased for a sum of four annas a sample of one of the tins for analysis and the analysis when made disclosed the fact that the ghee was grossly adulterated. Upon these facts, the petitioner was convicted as already stated and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. The question is whether...
Tag this Judgment!E.i. Ry. Co. and anr. Vs. Shewbux Roy Ghanshyamdas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal491
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit in which the plaintiffs Shew Bux Roy Ghaneshyamdas claimed damages for non delivery of 17 tins of ghee out of a consignment of 104 tins dispatched from Daltongunge by Luchmi Narain Mahadeo Lal on 4th February 1922 to be delivered to the plaintiffs are Barakar. The consignment was covered by a risk-note in Form B. The trial Court dismissed the suit. That decision was reversed and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Subordinate Judge on appeal. The defendant the E.I. Ry. Co. and the Secretary of State for India in Council have preferred this appeal.2. The facts as found by the trial Court and as far as they are necessary to be stated are these : A general strike of the railway servants, mostly menials, commenced on 15th February and work on the line was at a dead-stop. The van containing the consignment arrived at Dhanbad on 12th February and was left in charge of a choukidar at the goods yard to be taken along with o...
Tag this Judgment!Karali Prosad Dutta and anr. Vs. E.i. Ry. Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal498
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover from the defendants, the East Indian Railway Co., the price with interest of a bale of cloth, which formed part of a consignment dispatched from Howrah to the plaintiffs at Durgapur. The consignment was covered by a risk-note in form B, The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, but on appeal taken from that decision the District Judge reversed the same and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. The District Judge held that the risk-note was signed by one Basudev who delivered the goods to the Railway Company for carriage, and the Railway Company absolved by reason of the risk-note.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants, in the first place, that it has not been legally proved that Basudev signed the risk-note. This fact was sought to be proved in this way : Basudev who is said to be alive was not called, obviously for the reason that it was either not possible for the defendants to find him out or to rel...
Tag this Judgment!Begraj Gadhuram Vs. E.i. Ry. Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal697
Mukherji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to the appeal was for recovery of damages for non-delivery of a package of cotton piecegoods which, together with ten such packages, formed a consignment which was dispatched to the plaintiffs at Raniganj, a station on the E.I. Ry., from Aserva, a station on the G.I.P. Ry. The two railway administrations were made defendants in the suit. The Munsif decreed the suit against the E.I. Ry., only, but on appeal preferred by the said defendant the Subordinate Judge reversed that decision and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. The Subordinate Judge held that though the consignment was covered by a Risk-note in form B the railway was not absolved as the case came within the exception mentioned in the Risk-note, that the loss was due to theft by railway servants or by outsiders, and that if it was due to theft by outsiders there was wilful neglect of the Railway Administration or the railway servants. He held, how...
Tag this Judgment!The East Indian Railway Company and anr. Vs. Shew Bux Roy Ghanshyamdas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.303
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit in which the plaintiffs Shew Bux Roy Ghanshyamdas claimed damages for non-delivery of 17 tins of ghee out of a consignment of 104 tins despatched from Daltongunge by Luchmi Narain Mahadeo Lal on the 4th February, 1922, to be delivered to the plaintiffs at Barakar. The consignment was covered by a Risk Note in Form B. The trial Court dismissed the suit. That decision was reversed and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Subordinate Judge on appeal. The defendants, the East Indian Railway Company and the Secretary of State for India in Council have preferred this appeal.2. The facts as found by the trial Court and as far as they are necessary to be stated are these: A general strike of the Railway servants, mostly menials commenced on the 15th February and work on the line was at a dead stop. The van containing the consignment arrived at Dhanbad on the 12th February and was left in charge of a choukidar at the goods ya...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »