Kolkata Court May 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.
Srijan Gazi Vs. Abdul Sattar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal885,116Ind.Cas.731
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of my learned brother Mr. Mitter, J., sitting in second appeal. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the present appellant for rent. The position is this. The plaintiff is a raiyat who, for a holding of two plots, pay a rental of Rs. 9-8-0. He has let one of those two plots to the defendant-appellant who is an under raiyat and he has left that at a rent of Rs. 32-0-0 per annum. The tenant-defendant's contention is that, under Section 48, Ben. Ten. Act, the plaintiff cannot recover the rent at the rate claimed. Ha says that, although there has been let to him only a part of the plaintiff's holding, nevertheless the plaintiff cannot, under Section 48, Ben. Ten. Act, recover more than the total rent which he pays for his total holding plus 50 per cent, on that. In other words, the defendant's, contention is that Rs. 14-4-0 is the maximum amount which the plaintiff can claim from him. That contention has been negatived...
Ambica Prosad Das Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal483,114Ind.Cas.82
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts involved in this case are as follows : In this case a Water-works Sub-Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta complained on 5th December 1927 before the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta against the petitioner for having executed certain works in connexion with filtered water supply in his premises with extension and addition of fittings and pipes by a person other than a licensed plumber from premises No. 1/1A, Puddopukur Square in Kinderpore. The complainant stated in his petition of complaint that notice had been served on 22nd September 1927, but that the said notice had not been complied with by the accused. On that petition of complaint being filed, summons was issued under the provisions of Section 271(2) read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. The summons was served on 2nd February 1928, on one Puma Chandra Das, who, we are informed, is a son of the accused. It appears that the case itself was fixed for hearing on 2nd February. One Jati...
Becharam Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Benode Behari Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal510
1. This appeal is directed against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit which was one for declaration of title and for a mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to remove a portion of their privy which they have built upon the ejmali drain. The first Court decreed the plaintiffs suit on the finding that there was an encroachment by the defendants on the ejmali drain. The lower appellate Court is of opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that there was any encroachment by the defendants upon the ejmali drain, and this view it has been induced to hold by the fact that the present position of the drain was not demarcated in any of the maps prepared in the case. It appears that in 1904 a partition of the joint properties was made through Court between the ancestors of the parties. The disputed drain was left ejmali and it has been remarked by the lower appellate Court that it is difficult to determine for what purpose. This ej...
Aurabindo Nath Tagore and anr. Vs. Monorama Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal670
Page, J.1. The controversy in this case relates to a dispute among certain members of the Tagore family over the right to administer the trusts of the will of one Kiranmali Mukerjee.2. The suit arises in this way : Bonomali Mukerji founded and dedicated to two deities a temple in' Monoharpukur Road, Ballygunge. He died in 1892, leaving him surving Kiranmaii Mukerjee and a daughter Mahaprova Debi. The daughter had two sons Aurabindo and Rabindra, and they are the plaintiffs. On 9th November 1903 Kiran died, having made a will of which he appointed one Pundarikakshya the executor and trustee. In his will, Kiran stated that he died possessed of no moveable or immovable properties, and that he had made provision for his wife Mayabini Debi; and he directed the executor and trustee to pay his debts, and to celebrate the pujah of the two deities at the temple in Ballygunge in the same manner that he had done in his lifetime. He further directed inter alia that a sum of Rs. 10,000 the subject-...
In Re: Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal212,117Ind.Cas.689
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the Commissioner of Income-tax. Bengal, has stated to this Court for its opinion the question whether a certain sum, Rs. 2 1/4 lakhs, received by the assessees is exempt from taxation under Section 4, Sub-section 3, Clause 7, Income-tax Act, 1922. The sum in question is a sum which was voted to the assessees by the shareholders of a company called the Cossipur Sugar works Ltd. It appears that that company was passing a resolution for voluntary winding up. A firm which had previously carried on the business now carried on by the assessees had been nominated by the Articles of Association of this company as their Managing Agents. No time was fixed throughout which they were to be the Managing Agents and no remuneration was settled for the office; but in point of fact, the firm and afterwards the company, namely, the present assessees acted as the Managing Agents and during certain years which are mentioned in the letter of Reference, received about half a lak...
Nazir Ahmad Vs. Jogeshchandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: 111Ind.Cas.569
1. For the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge of Noakhali we accept the reference and quash the proceedings referred to therein....
Aurabinda Nath Tagore and anr. Vs. Manarama Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.496
Page, J.1. The controversy in this case relates to a dispute among certain members of the Tagore family over the right to administer the trusts of the Will of one Kiranmali Mukerjee.2. The suit arises in this way. Banamali Mukerjee founded and dedicated to two deities a temple in Monoharpukur Road, Ballygunge. He died in 1892, leaving him surviving Kiranmali Mukerjee and a daughter Mahaprova Debi. The daughter had two sons Aurabinda and Rabindra, and they are the plaintiffs. On the 9th November, 1903, Kiran died, having made a Will of which he appointed one Pundarikakshya the executor and trustee. In his Will Kiran stated that he died possessed of no moveable or immoveable properties, and that he had made provision for his wife Mayabini Debi; and he directed the executor and trustee to pay his debts, and to celebrate the pujah of the two deities at the temple in Ballygunge in the same manner that he had done in his lifetime. He further directed inter alia that a sum of Rs. 10,000 the s...
Ramchandra Saha and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Kanta Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal574
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In these appeals the defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the appellants before this Court. The plaintiffs in the two suits out of which these appeals have arisen and defendant 1 are cosharers in respect of the lands in suit. These lands were formerly in the occupation of certain tenants. The latter abandoned their holdings and repudiated their tenancies. It is alleged that during the settlement operations in the district where the lands are situate, defendant 1 got his name recorded as purchaser of the holdings. The Record-of-Rights was finally published on 20th October 1919. The plaintiffs contend that the holdings being non-transferable without the consent of the landlords, defendant 1 acquired no rights whatsoever as against the plaintiffs, and in the events that have happened the plaintiffs are entitled to joint khas possession of the lands in accordance with their shares. The two other defendants are other cosharer landlords of the holdings in question. On behalf of the def...
Narayan Bera Vs. Jharu Mandal of Baratola and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal792
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is a revision application directed against the order of the Court below passed under Order 21, Rule 101, Civil P.C., restoring the opposite party in possession of the disputed property. The facts are that the opposite party Jharu Mondal claims to be the purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding in execution of a decree against the tenant. The landlord subsequently brought a suit for rent against the recorded tenant and obtained a decree and attached the holding. Jharu there upon applied to deposit the amount of the decree in Court under Section 170, Ben, Ten. Act. His application finally came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Jharu Mondal v. Khetra Mohun Bera A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 934. It was held that Jharu was neither a judgment-debtor nor a person whose interest was voidabls on the sale, and therefore not entitled to make the deposit. Thereafter the petitioner obtained possession of the holding in suit through Court and thereby dispos...
Kailash Chandra Dutt Vs. Jogesh Chandra Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal868
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 one of the directors of a limited company at Cachar. The suit out of which this appeal arises was by one of the share-holders. The learned Judge states the facts as follows : There is an Insurance Company with a registered office at Silchar. This company, has a capital of over a lakh of Rupees, and according to the opinion of the learned Judge everything does not appear to have gone on well with this company and internal faction has been causing a good deal of trouble. The directors of the company were elected in 1921. According to the Articles of Association of the company the directors are to be elected annually. A general meeting was convened on 22nd June 1922 at, which among other things it was proposed to elect new directors. Before the election of the directors was completed the meeting came to an end and, therefore, there was no general meeting for election of directors. The old directors apparently continued to act, and the pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »