Kolkata Court August 1928 Judgments
Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy Vs. NabIn Chandra Ram Chandra Shaha and Official ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal786
Rankin, C.J.1. It appears that one Sailendra Krishna Roy was adjudicated an insolvent in this Court on 9th August 1921. This case arose out of an application made to the Registrar in Insolvency by a firm called Nabin Chandra Ram Chandra Shaha, creditors of the insolvent for an examination of the appellant Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy under Section 36, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, upon certain matters. It appears that he appellant is the father-in-law of the insolvent. It appears further that on 25th January 1921 the insolvent purported to enter into a mortgage in favour of the appellant over certain properties in respect of a sum of 1 1/2 lacs. It seems that on 20th December 1922 an application for examination of the appellant was made by the Official Assignee but was afterwards withdrawn. A second application was made by the respondent creditor Nabin Chandra Ram Chandra Shaha on 14th June 1923 and the appellant was examined before the Court under Section 36, Presidency Towns Insolvency A...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Kumari Dassya and anr. Vs. Jogendra Nath Dutt and ors .
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal285
Basu, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bankura reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsiff at Bankura in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in kind. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit in full. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to the market price of the paddy and not the price stated in the kabuliat. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the price stated in the kabuliyat and not the market price as followed by the Munsiff. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal. The question involved in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the market value of the paddy and straw reserved as rent in the kabuliat or the. price of the same as stated in it. The. material portion of the kabuliat is as follows:I am making a settlement to you for ever in dar mukarari right at an annual rent of 7 maps of saja paddy on the standard of bankuri pai and 1 kahan straw. You will pay the settled saja paddy and straw to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Kumari Dassya and anr. Vs. Jogendra Nath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.562
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bankura reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsif at Bankura in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in kind. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in full. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to the market price of the paddy and not the price stated in the kabuliyat. The learned District Juge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the price stated in the kabuliyat and not the market price as allowed by the Munsif. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal. The question involved in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the market value of the paddy and straw reserved as rent in the kabuliyat or the price of the same as stated in it. The material portion of the kabuliyat is as follows.I am making a settlement to you for ever in dar mukarari right at an annual rent of 7 maps of saja paddy on the standard of bankuri pai and 1 kahan straw. You will pay the settled saja paddy and straw to me and after...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prosad Vs. Khitish Chandra Sanyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal21,118Ind.Cas.863
1. In these cases we are satisfied on an examination of the record that the Magistrate has not followed the provisions of Part 4, Ch. 10, Criminal P.C. The order, complained of cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand and they are accordingly set aside. The matters will go back for a proper enquiry in accordance with law. The rules are accordingly made absolute....
Tag this Judgment!Musa Singh Vs. Gostha Behary Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal657
ORDER11. We have examined the record and perused the explanation submitted by the Additional District Magistrate and on the facts appearing therein there cannot be any doubt that the order of acquittal passed on 18th May 1928 must be set aside and the case against Gostha Behari Chatterjee retried by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who passed the orders in the first instance to be nominated by the District Magistrate. The rule is accordingly made absolute....
Tag this Judgment!Bimala Charan Rudra Vs. Abdul Rahaman Dalal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal825,114Ind.Cas.81
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage bond by way of conditional sale. The mortgage was executed on 23rd November 1905 by one Ananda Chandra De, and the plaintiff has acquired Ananda's interest under a kobala. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's suit, ordering that the plaintiff shall recover possession on payment into Court within seven days of the decree the sum of Rs. 700 which is the amount for which the property was mortgaged. The Court of appeal below reversed the decree of the first Court. Its findings were that the transaction was not a mortgage but an out-and-out sale, and that the plaintiff had acquired no title under his kobala which was not a bona fide deed. The learned Subordinate Judge's ground for holding that the deed which expressly states that it is a mortgage by way of conditional sale is an out-and-out sale, is that the word 'bikrita' which means 'sold' had been written in one part of the document and had been penned through p...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Oosman and Co. Vs. Ojamshee Purshottamdas and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal5
Lort-Williams, J.1. The facts in this case are as follows : By seven contracts, partly printed and partly in writing, and dated 10th November 1920 the plaintiffs sold to the defendants 1871/2 tons of white Java Sugar ex. S.S. 'Rajput.' Notice of arrival was sent to the defendants on the 16th December, and on 5th January 1921 the delivery order was tendered. Defendants failed to take delivery, and thereupon the goods were resold on the 6th at a loss of Rs. 22,899-3-3.2. Defendants disputed their liability, and as the contracts contained arbitration clauses, plaintiffs appointed a Mr. Duggan to act as sole arbitrator, the defendants having refused to make any appointment. Defendants declined to recognize the arbitration, and on 25th January 1921 the arbitrator made seven ex parte awards in favour of the plaintiffs, and these were filed in Court on the 31st. Seven warrants of attachment were issued on 3rd February. These were entitled 'In the matter of the Indian Arbitration Act (9 of 189...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chandra Bhaduri and ors. Vs. Brojobashi Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal157
1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands as belonging to an occupancy holding. The land had belonged to two brothers, Kashinath and Shibnath, and the plaintiff is Shibnath's reversionary heir. It is found by the learned Courts below that Shibnath had predeceased his brother Kashinath and, therefore, the plaintiff was only entitled to recover a half share of the tenancy. The property in suit had been sold by Shibnath's widow, Tushta Bewa, to the defendants, who are some of the cosharer landlords. Tushta died in Chaitra 1324, and the suit was instituted just after six years after her death.2. The question which is raised before us is the question of limitation. The defendants, who are the appellants before us, contend that the special rule of limitation contained in Article 3, Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act applies, and that the period of limitation for the suit is two years from Tushta's death. Article 3, Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act, declares th...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Chandra Sinha Vs. Rahim Baksh Jahgirdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal81
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiffs as patnidars to set aside the sales of two patnis under Regulation 8 of 1819. The Subordinate Judge set aside the sales of both the patnis and the zamindar defendant has preferred these appeals. Both these suits were governed by the same judgment and the facts, with regard to both were the same. The arguments addressed with regard to both these appeals before us are the same and one judgment will govern both these appeals.2. The plea of the plaintiffs was principally that the tenures were not patnis so as to invoke the provisions of Regulation 8 of 1819 for holding a sale under that regulation; secondly, that the requisite notices were not served as provided in Section 8, Regulation 8 of 1819. The sales in these cases were mid-year sales for the dues on account of the patnis for the first half year. The Subordinate Judge held that both the tenures were really patnis and the sale under Regulation 8 is, t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kumar Mitra and ors. Vs. AjmaddIn Bhuiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal163,114Ind.Cas.129
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit by the plaintiff for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on the ground that he has an occupancy raiyati right in the two jamas mentioned in the schedules ha and kha of the plaint and is not liable to be evicted therefrom. The facts which have led up to this suit are that a suit was brought in 1909 by the defendants for ejectment of the plaintiff from the lands in this suit alleging him to be an under-raiyat and that suit was dismissed. In 1918 the defendants brought a suit against the plaintiff under Section 66, Ben. Ten. Act, alleging that the plaintiff was his korfa tenant, for arrears of rent and in default of payment for ejectment. That suit was decreed ex parte but the plaintiff in this suit appeared at a later stage and deposited a portion of the decretal amount. It appears that he did not deposit the entire amount and, therefore, the defendant took out execution of the decree and obtained formal delivery of possess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »