Kolkata Court June 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.
Amulya Ratan Haldar and ors. Vs. Amulya Chandra Bhaduri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal115,118Ind.Cas.565
1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Hooghly, dated 11th April 1928 imposing a fine of Rs. 50 on each of the petitioners for contempt of Court should not be set aside on the ground that it is based on no material eridence on the record. It appears that the Judge appointed a receiver in. a suit in respect of some properties alleged to belong to the Tarakeswar Temple. On 28th January 1928 the receiver submitted a report to the Judge the purport of which is that from the report of his collection agent he has found that the persons named in the report are systamatically opposing his collection agent and obstructiug the collection of rent from the tenants by him. On receipt of this report on 31st January the Judge issued notices to the petitioner to show cause why they should not be dealt with according to law for systematic opposition to the receiver's collection. The petitioners appeared before the Judge and in showing caus...
Ajaz HossaIn Jafri Vs. Altaf HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal651,114Ind.Cas.413
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. by the District Judge of the 24-Perganas. It arises out of an application made by the appellant for continuing an appeal which has been preferred by the respondent pending in the Court of the District Judge on the allegation that the interest of the respondent in the appeal had devolved on the appellant. The District Judge rejected the application and hence this appeal.2. The facts are very simple. There is a well-known foundation of Mohamed Mohsin of the Hooghly Imambara. There is a committee appointed under the Religious Endowment Act 20 of 1863 for the management of the endowment. The committee it appears from time to time appoints a manager or mutwali for the performance of the duties in connexion with the foundation. In this case the President of the managing committee advertized in the news papers, a-copy of which has been exhibited in this case Ex. 7, inviting applicants for the post of ...
Abdul Hakim Vs. Annada Prosad Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal669
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises put of a suit brought by the landlord to recover possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding on, the allegation of an abandonment thereof, by the tenant. It appears that the tenant mortgaged the entire holding in favour of defendant 1, the appellant before us in the year 1907. In 1911 the plaintiff landlord brought a, suit for arrears of rent against the tenant and obtained a decree and in execution thereof he himself purchased the holding on 8th July 1913. After this purchase plaintiff settled the land with the pro forma defendant but the pro forma defendant, on failing to obtain possession of the land from defendant 1, surrendered the holding to the plaintiff. This was in 1918. Before 1918 defendant had brought a suit on his mortgage in the year 1915 and obtained a decree in the same year and in execution of his mortgage decree put up the mortgaged property to sale and purchased it on 13th November 1916. Plaintiff's claim to recover possession o...
Asutosh Ghose and anr. Vs. Sashi Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal165
Cammiade, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against, the dismissal of their suit in part. The suit was one for accounts in connexion with a business that had belonged to the father of the plaintiffs who died in October 1915. The defendant was the gomastha in charge of the business from time of the father of the plaintiffs. No accounts had been called for from him at any time prior to the beginning of the year 1327 B.S. that is to say, some time in April 1920 when defendant was dismissed. The accounts prayed for are for the whole of the period of the defendant's service. The Courts below found that the claim so far as it relates to the period prior to the death of the plaintiffs' father is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have appealed. Plaintiff 1 is an adult and the second was a minor even at the time of the hearing of the appeal in the Courts below, and the plaintiffs have sought to take advantage of the provisions of Section 7, Lim. Act in order to obtain extension of time f...
Asutosh Ghose and Ans. Vs. Sashi Moman Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.354
Cammiade, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit in part The suit was one for accounts in connection with a business that had belonged to the father of the plaintiffs who died in October, 1915. The defendant was the gomastha in charge of the business from time of the father of the plaintiffs. No accounts had been called for from him at any time prior to the beginning of the year 1327 B.S., that is to say, some time in April 1920 when defendant was dismissed. The accounts prayed for are for the whole of the period of the defendant's service. The Courts below found that the claim sO far as it relates to the period prior to the death of the plaintiffs' father is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have appealed. The first plaintiff is an adult and the second was a minor even at the time of the hearing of the appeal in the Courts below, and the plaintiffs have sought to take advantage of the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitation Act in order to obtai...
Jharu Mondal and ors. Vs. MahatabuddIn Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal713,113Ind.Cas.561
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated 3rd May 1927, which affirmed a decision of the Munsif of Bongaon, dated 14th September 1925. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of two plots on the allegation that the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of rent with respect to plot No. 1 in the year 1921 against defendant 1 who according to the plaintiff's case was holding the disputed lands as the utbondi tenant from the time when plaintiff's vendor was in possession. Defendant 1 denied the title of the plaintiff in that rent suit with the result that that suit was dismissed on 28th March 1923. It is said that the present suit had to be instituted due to the denial of plaintiff's title in the previous suit there has been a forfeiture and the plaintiff is entitled to get khas possession of the lands of plot 1. With regard to plot 2 the case of the plaintiff is that t...
Gobinda Ram Agarwala Vs. Dulu Pada Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal753
Cammiade, J.1. The question arising for decision in this rule is whether or not the Courts below have rightly refused to allow the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before this Court, to value his suit under the provisions of Section 7, para. (11), Sub-clause (cc), Court-fees Act. The tenancy that had existed and had been held by the defendant had been terminated; and the suit was one for ejectment of the defendant as a trespasser. The plaintiff sought to value his suit under the clause referred to above on the assertion that for the purposes of the valuation of the suit the defendant was still a tenant. There is nothing in the wording of the sub-clause to lead to any such conclusion. That sub-clause reads as follows:For the recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the determination of the tenancy.2. Once the tenancy had been determined the person who has been a tenant became a trespasser holding on, and he could only be a tenant holding over pr...
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Tejarat Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.363
Mitter, J.1. In these three appeals by the plaintiff landlord the only question raised is as to whether the Courts below were right in disallowing certain sums which were shown as hajat in the kabuliyat executed by the tenant. The question really turns on the construction of the kabuliyats which are in similar terms in the three appeals. The terms of the kabuliyat of the 4th Aswin, 1296, are as follows:Exhibit 1(A) kabuliyat executed by Easin Sheikh in favour of Govinda Chandra Roy, dated the 4th Aswin, 1296 B.S. Dowl Bandobast:Babu Gobinda Chandra Roy zemindar son of late Babu Gurudas Roy in possession of Taraf Nagirat Pergana Mahmudsahi by virtue of auction-purchase right, by caste Kayestha, by profession zemindar, of Narail Mokam Brahmandanga, Pergana Naldi, Station Sub-Registry Sub-Division Narail, District Jessore. Within the said Taraf in village Sithali tenant Maizaddi Sheikh, in possession Easin Sheikh, Rukhatulla Khan and Pirmamud Sheikh, pattan on kharij, Easin Sheikh, son of...
Ambica Charan Nandy Vs. Kalipada Bhattacharjya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.747
After hearing the learned. Vakil for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the opposite party, I think, this Rule must be discharged. The ground taken was that the Small Cause Court below was in error in not admitting in evidence a promissory note payable on demand which was executed for a sum of Rs. 272 and executed after the Stamp Act of 1923, came into force by which the stamp of 2 annas was payable on the handnote on the ground that it is not admissible in evidence because the promissory note bora a stamp of 1 anna. It is argued that this case is governed by the Validating Act XI of 1926. It appears, however, that the Act XI of 1926, has no reference to a case where a promissory note was not stamped with a stamp of the value required by law in force at the time the promissory note was executed. It is not intended to validate cases where the stamps were insufficient. But it was intended to validate cases where the promissory note bore sufficient stamp but adhesive stamp inscri...
In Re: Stamp Act
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal566
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Reference made to us under the provisions of Section 57, Stamp Act. It would appear that certain, instruments were presented on behalf of the holder for adjudication as to whether it was necessary that they should be stamped under Section 19, Stamp Act. The documents of which three in number are before us may be sufficiently exemplified by choosing one of the three. The one which I shall choose is a document in the form in which bills of exchange are accustomed to be couched. It is headed 'Imperial Bank of India.' It is addressed from Calcutta. It is signed as drawer by the Secretary and Treasurer and the Accountant of the Imperial Bank of India. It is addressed to the Imperial Bank of India, Lahore, as the addressee or drawee and it is made payable to a third party, the Commercial Syndicate Ltd. or order. It will be observed, upon a strict reading of the instrument, that there are two parties and only two parties-the Imperial Bank of India on the one hand and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »