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.
Mohendra Chundra Nath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal359
C.C. Ghose, J.1. These are two Rules calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show pause why the conviction and sentence under Section 7, Indian Copyright Act (Act 3 of 1914), made and passed on the petitioners, should not be set aside on the ground that on the facts there was no infringement of the copyright of the complainant in the pictures referred to herein.2. The case for the prosecution is that the complainant is the owner, inventor or designer of certain pictures being Exs. 1, 4 and 7, and that the offending pictures, Exs. 13, 14 and 15, are infringements of the copyrights in respect of the original pictures. The Magistrate has, after careful consideration, come to the conclusion that the case for the prosecution is correct, and has accordingly convicted the petitioners, and has sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.3. The complainant alleges that the offending pictures, Exs. 13, 14 ...
Brindaban Chandra Majumdar Vs. Mt. Giribala Datta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal478,114Ind.Cas.83
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the principal defendant 1 and arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant. The plaintiff, now respondent, alleged that she acquired raiyati right in the suit land under a deed of gift from her mother, pro forma defendants, and that defendant 1 is an osat raiyat under her and that notice under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act had been served on 18th March 1923. The plaintiff also alleged that defendants had violated some of the conditions of the previous decree which was passed by consent between the plaintiff's mother and defendant and failed to pay the yearly jama within the stipulated period. The defence of the defendant in substance is that the plaintiff is a tenure holder and that the suit is barred by the law of estoppel by reason of the stipulation contained in the previous consent decree which is to the following effect,I (plaintiff) shall not be able to evict the defendant so long as the defendant pays the yearly rental of Rs. 20 within the ye...
Jogesh Chandra Kundu and ors. Vs. Radha Gobinda Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal848
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a suit by a zemindar against certain defendants who are now the appellants before us. But about the lands in Schedule 2 for which the lower appellate Court has given the plaintiff a decree, no question arises here. The question that arises is with regard to the lands of Schedule 1 to the plaint, and it appears that those lands were originally covered by a non-transferable occupancy holding of which the tenant was one Beng Mandal. It further appears that this tenant Beng Mandal in 1907 granted a mortgage over this holding to the defendants. It also appears that the defendants sued and-obtained a foreclosure decree and that in 1914 and later on in 1921 they obtained symbolical delivery of possession through Court. Some question has been raised as to the delivery of possession in 1921. But there was delivery of possession in 1921 as appears from the document which the learned lower appellate Court relied on. In these circumstances the question arises whether or not ...
Adhar Chandra Naskar Vs. Sarnwamoyi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal121,117Ind.Cas.530
Suhrawardy, J.1. The appellant in this case has been described as the judgment-debtor but he is in reality the defendant in the suit out of which the present appeal arises. The facts are that the plaintiff as second mortgagee in respect of certain properties brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a final decree. But before he could execute the decree, a suit was brought by a prior mortgagee on his mortgage to which the mortgagor and the plaintiff in the present suit as puisne mortgagee were parties. A decree was obtained in execution of which the property mortgaged with the plaintiff was sold in satisfaction of the debt due to the prior mortgagee. Thereafter the plaintiff made an application to the Court for a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. That application was granted and a decree has been passed under that rule in favour of the plaintiff.2. The defendant appeals and it is contended on his behalf that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree under Order 34,...
Sm. Pakija Bibi and ors. Vs. Adhar Chandra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal231,118Ind.Cas.574
Mitter, J.1. In this appeal by the defendants several points of law have been raised. The case of the plaintiff respondent is that they acquired the property in suit including cadastral survey plot 1304 of defendant 7 in January 1922. The property in suit belonged to the father of defendant 7 and to Pakija who is defendant 1 in the suit and it is said that three keras and odd land was inherited by the sisters from their parents. Shortly after the death of the father of defendants 1 and 7 a solenama was filed before the Collector in proceedings taken under the Land Registration Act for mutation of names and the name of defendant 1 was registered in respect of the disputed plots and it was stated in that solenama that for over 30 years defendant 1 was in exclusive occupation of the disputed lands. It was also stated that on payment of Rs. 250 defendant 7 gave up whatever right she had in the disputed properties to defendant 1. This solenama was in the year 1914. There were partition proc...
S.N. Banerjee Vs. Bengal Paint and Vanish Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal531
1. This is a rule against an acquittal. What happened in this case-is this : The opposite-party are a firm who carry on business in Calcutta. They tendered for certain goods to be supplied to the Municipality of Howrah. Their tender apparently was accepted and, in pursuance of the contract between the parties, the opposite party have sold goods from time to time to the Howrah Municipality. It is said on behalf of the Howrah Municipality that the opposite party who supply goods to the Howrah Municipality pursuant to the orders received in Calcutta carry on business in Howrah. A statement of this nature carries its own refutation and it is unnecessary to pursue the point further. The opposite party cannot be said by any stretch of language to be people who carry on business in Howrah. It follows, therefore, that the order made by the Deputy Magistrate on 13th September 1927 complained of by the Howrah Municipality cannot in any way be interfered with. The result is that this rule is disc...
Hemangini Debi Vs. Mundir Mridha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal576
1. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us sued for declaration of her tenancy right in certain lands and for recovery of possession. Her case was that the lands formed part of Estate No. 230 of the Patna Collectorate corresponding to Estate No. 77 of the Rajshabi Collecborate and were comprised within Chaks Nos. 25 and 28 of the Mehalwar map of village Katabari. She alleged that these lands which admittedly had been under water previously had become culturable and had been leased by the zamindar of the Estate No. 239 to third parties who defaulted in the payment of their rent and that the tenancy was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and was purchased at that sale by the plaintiff. The defendants denied these allegations, alleging that the lands beloged to village Mashinda within the district of Rajshahye and that they (the defendants) had been in possession of those lands for at least 28 years under leases granted by the Zemindar of Mashinda. The Court of first i...
Hari Mohan Dalal and anr. Vs. Parameshwar Shau and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal646,117Ind.Cas.543
Rankin, C.J.1. In these cases Mr. Suhrawardy and Graham, JJ. have differed on a question of law which has been referred to us under Section 98, Civil P.C., in the following terms:Whether in the circumstances of the present cases, time to be reckoned under Section 181, Lim. Act, should be counted from the date of the decrees of the High Court dismissing the appeals from the decrees of the lower appellate Court, or from the dates of the pronouncement of the decrees of the lower appellate Court, or whether the respondents are entitled to get deduction of the period occupied by the appeals to this Court.2. The facts which give meaning to this question of law are as follows:The plaintiff brought a series of rent suits against tenants and on 3lst July 1919 obtained decrees from the Court of first instance for the amount of his claim. During the pendency of appeals in the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff realized by execution the whole of his decretal amounts. Thereafter, on 14th August 1...
Enid Ivy Collins Vs. Walter George Collins
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal806
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage brought on 18th July 1927. The learned Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that on 1st June 1926 there was a previous petition by the wife against the husband whereby she sought and obtained a decree for judicial separation upon grounds of cruelty and adultery. That decree was granted to her on 17th August 1927. The present petition is founded upon the same acts of cruelty and adultery as founded the previous petition. The petitioner explains that she did not wish for a dissolution of marriage partly because she was a Roman Catholic and had scruples against divorce and partly because she desired to see whether her husband would take her back and also because she was able to get maintenance. She asked for a decree for judicial separation on the previous occasion though she was entitled by law to a decree for dissolution of marriage. It appears that these reasons no longer actuate the lady to the same extent....
Surendra Nath Chatterji Vs. Jahnavi Charan Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal484
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the applicant for probate of a will and a Codicil against a portion of the decree of the District Judge of Hoogly. The will was alleged to have been executed by one Ram Lal Mukherji, dated 6th September 1914 and the Codicil was executed by the same gentleman dated 11th September 1920. Ram Lal died on 9th April 1923, He was a gentleman of considerable properties and died at a good old age. It is said that he was 85 years of age at the time of his death. It is unnecessary to state in detail the members of his family at the time of his death and shortly before that as the facts have been fully set out in the judgment of the District Judge. It is sufficient to say that he was survived by four sons, Mritunjoy, Ganga Charan, Jahnavi Charan and Jahnavi Prosad and two daughters and a large number of grandchildren. Ho became a widower in the year 1890, and after that he went to live more or less as a recluse in a house built on a rock near the town of Mongh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›