Kolkata Court August 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.
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Provat Chandra Kanjilal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal303
Page, J.1. The suit is brought by the landlord against the tenure-holder of a maurashi mokarari registered lease contained in a patta and in a counter-part kabuliat. The claim is for arrears of rent from 1327 to 1320 B.S. at the annual rent fixed in the kabuliat, viz., Re. 176-8-15. The defence was that the tenant was entitled to a diminution in the amount of rent on account of diluvion and claimed the benefit of Section 52(B), Ben Ten. Act. The plaintiff, on the other hand, relied upon Section 179 of the Act which runs as follows:Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent a proprietor or a holder of a permanent tenure in a permanently settled area from granting a mourashi lease on any terms agreed on between him and his tenant.2. He urges that under the terms of the contract of the tenancy the tenant agreed to pay as rent for the lands demised a sum of Rs. 176-8-15 per year in any event. Now, the tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 52 unless he has contracted to the contr...
Tiku Kahar Vs. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal58
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The objection that has been taken in this case on behalf of the respondents is that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and that being so no appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Commissioner under Section 30, Proviso. (2), Sub-section 1, Workmen's Compensation Act, (8 of 1923). The learned Commissioner has found that' the accident, which was a very unfortunate one by which the appellant lost his right arm was due to the wilful disobedience of the order expressly given to him as well as to the other workmen by the night Sirdar of the Colliery.2. The case of the defendants-respondents was that the Sirdar actually made a cross over an old hole and he told the applicant and the other men not to drill there. The applicant gave his own evidence in support of his case. His evidence was that he saw no cross mark. The Commissioner has found that the version on behalf of the employers was true so that it must be taken as a fact that ther...
Rajkishore Gope and ors. Vs. Bhabatosh Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal225
Rankin, J.1. In this ease it appears that one Asutosh Chakravarti was a builder and he had a building contract with the Naogoan Ganja Cultivators' Co-operative Society for the construction of a charitable dispensary. He had other works in hand and in order to finance the building work he proposed to take a loan from the Naogaon Loan Office. He submitted a petition to the Naogaon Ganja Cultivators' Co-operative Society saying that he desired to take a loan and asking them to enter into an arrangement that when their bills were certified as due they would pay the money to the Loan Company direct. In that way a certain amount of security for the loan would b& made realizable to the Loan Society. This arrangement has been held by the Munsif to have been an arrangement that the builder would barrow sums up to Rs. 5,000 but it is quite clear from the agreement which was eatered into with the building owners the Ganja Cultivators Co-operative Society, that the authority to pay the money to th...
Khetra Nath Bakuly and ors. Vs. Baharali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal228
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land in the following circumstances : In 1876 the plaintiffs' predecessors granted a permanent heritable lease to one Beni Madhab in respect of land purported to be used for habitation. After Beni Madhab's death the land was enjoyed by his widow, Matangini. In 1913 Matangini transferred the leasehold right in the land to one Ambika. In 1918Ambika's son Dhirendra transferred it to the present defendant. In the lease granted to Beni Madhab there was a condition or a covenant that the lessee should not be entitled to transfer the lease. The plaintiffs have accordingly brought the suit on the allegation that the covenant in the lease was broken and that the defendant was a trespasser on the land. The trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiffs but the lower appellate Court has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit mainly on the ground of estoppel and waiver. The learned Subordinate Judge finds that Ambika, the transfer...
Sarat Chandra Rakshit Vs. Subashini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal89
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holder, against the order of the Subordinate Judge declaring that ho is liable for mesne profits for a certain period commencing from 22nd January 1923, to the date of the application which was 25th March 1926. The question arises in this way : The decree-holder obtained a decree for arrears of rent with regard to the property in question in the year 1920. The decree was put into execution for the whole amount which was something like nine thousand rupees and the tenure was purchased by the decree-holder at the execution sale on 7th November 1921. The judgment-debtors applied for setting aside the sale and that application was dismissed on 27th May 1922, by the trial Court. The sale was subsequently confirmed and symbolical possession is alleged to have been taken by the decree-holder on 22nd January 1923. From the order of the trial Court dismissing the application for setting aside the sale an appeal was taken to this Court b...
Elie Goldberg Vs. Sarojini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal732
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that one Elie Goldberg was the defendant with two others in a suit brought by the mortgagee upon a covenant in an English mortgage for Rs. 15,000 plus interest. In appears that a certain colliery property was the mortgaged subject and the claimant sued for a personal judgment for Rs. 29,508-8-0. The suit was filed a few days ago, namely, on 13th August 1928. On 14th August, the plaintiff applied for the arrest of the defendant, Elie Goldberg, under Order 38, Rule 1, on the ground that he was about to leave the jurisdiction, with intent to delay the plaintiff or to avoid the process of the Court and to obstruct and defeat the execution of any decree that might be passed against him.2. Now the plaintiff got an order ex parte in the form of a warrant directed to the Sheriff and commanding him:to demand and receive from Elie Goldberg a sum of Rs. 10,000 as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim in this suit and, unless the said sum of Rs. 10,000 ...
Abdul Barik and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal827,113Ind.Cas.70
1. In this case the accused were tried under Section 328, and 301, I.P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge of Bakarganj and a jury. After the learned Judge had charged the jury it appears that the jury retired at 4-10 p.m. and returned at 4-25. When they returned, the verdict of the jury was given as follows:Q. Are you unanimous? A. Yes.Q. What is your verdict? A. We agree? with whatever opinion you may form (hujurer je rai amader).2. The jury were accordingly directed at 4-26p.m. to go back and bring in a proper verdict after consideration of the evidence. They came back at 4-35p.m. and on being questioned they said that they found all the three accused not guilty under Section 301 and by a majority of 4 to 1 found all the three accused. Montajuddi, Abdul Barik and Akram Ali, guilty under Section 328, I.P.C. In this state of the record it is impossible not to feel that the jury did not properly consider the case at all. The jury, as has been pointed out in several cases, are the onl...
Promothonath Mittra and ors. Vs. Gostha Behari Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal380,118Ind.Cas.849
Garlick, J.1. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff wanted a lease of 6 bighas of land 12 annas of which belonged to defendants 1 to 7 whom I shall call the Mitras and four annas belonged to defendants 8 & 9 who represent some minors whom we may call the Boses. The plaintiff negotiated with the Mitras. They agreed to give him a bemeadi lease for a selami of Rs. 300 and annual rent of Rs. 60. It was apparently assumed that the four annas cosharers would join in the lease. In pursuance of this agreement the plaintiff paid Rs. 300 as selami to the Mitras and executed a registered kabuliyat which had been drawn up in their cutchery. They agreed to give him an amalnama signed by the 16 annas cosharers. Defendants 8 and 9 however refused to join in the lease so the amalnama was never given. The Mitras offered to pay back to the plaintiff his Rs. 300 but he would not take it and insisted on getting a lease. As defendants 8 and 9 would not join in granting a lease he filed this suit ag...
Emperor Vs. Khuday Gazi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.285
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the two accused persons named Khuday Gazi and Abdul Hadi Sardar were put upon their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Khulna with a Jury of seven persons on a charge of murder of one Punti Bibi. It appears that both the accused persona are uriyas, the second accused having become a Muhammadan. It appears that Punti Bibi was a woman who had been married by the first accused Khuday Gazi in nicca form after the death of her first husband. The first husband had left a house and some other property and the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on the 25th February, 1928, in the middle of the night of Saturday and Sunday took place in the house of the woman.2. The case for the prosecution is that these two accused together with the two witnesses Fatik Sardar and Katar Shaikh were smoking gunja in Punti Bibi's house that they were smoking and singing songs and that Panti Bibi was in another part of the house and did not take any s...
In Re: S, a Vakil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal820
Rankin, C.J.1. Prasanna Kumar Sen, in May of this year, presented in person a petition to this Court complaining of the conduct of S, a vakil of this Court. By an order dated 28th May 1928, a rule was issued calling upon the vakil to submit to this Court an explanation of his conduct in respect of the matters complained of. At the hearing of this rule it was on 17th July 1928 ordered by the Court that a rule should issue calling on the vakil to show cause wny he should not be suspended from practice or otherwise dealt with for professional misconduct : (1) in failing to file the second appeal, Prasanna Kumar Sen v. Hiralal Roy Choudhuri and (2) in failing thereafter to make proper explanation to the Court of the circumstances with reference to such failure in order that time might be extended for the filing of the said second appeal. This rule was issued under the powers conferred by Clause 10, Letters Patent 1865, which empowers the Court to remove or suspend from practice on reasonab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »