Kolkata Court September 1928 Judgments
Krishna Chandra Das Vs. Jotindra Nath Porial and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal159a,114Ind.Cas.415
1. In this case the question is whether the application for execution is barred by limitation. Both the Courts below have held that the decree-holder is entitled to exclude the time during which the insolvency proceedings were pending, that is between the period of 9th April 1924 when the judgment-debtor was adjudicated an insolvent and the 27th August 1925 when the adjudication was annulled. During the course of the execution of the decree the judgment debtor applied for being adjudicated an insolvent. He entered in his schedule the decree-holder as the only person who was his creditor, and apparently he stated that the decree-holder had obtained the decree. Upon that the executing Court stayed the execution and it appears that the Court directed the decree-holder to produce a copy of the insolvency proceedings. The decree-holder apparently failed to produce a copy of the insolvency proceeding within the time allowed and the execution case was thereupon struck off. Now the judgment-de...
Tag this Judgment!Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal777,115Ind.Cas.593
Rankin, C.J.1. The present reference to the Full Bench has been made by a Division Bench in a second appeal arising out of a rent suit. Two questions of law have been formulated for our opinion, but under Rule 2, Ch. 7 of the appellate side rules, the whole case is submitted to us for final decision.2. The first point taken before us was not taken at the hearing before the Division Bench, but as it goes to jurisdiction it must be entertained and decided.3. The contention is that no second appeal lies in this case by reason of the provisions of Section 153, Ben Ten. Act. The claim in the suit was (1) for arrears of rent of four years 1327-1330 B.S. at Rs. 16 per annum, i.e., Rs. 64; (2) cess for four years at'8 annas per annum, i.e., Rs. 2; (3) interest on rent in arrear at 75 per cent, per annum, i.e., Rs. 108-2-0, making a total claim of Rs. 174-2-0. The tenant nevertheless contends that the case comes within Clause (a), Section 153, in that 'the amount claimed in the suit does not ex...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Pal Vs. Barlow and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal782,113Ind.Cas.860
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter the question that has been referred to the Fall Bench is as follows:Whether, under Section 18, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, a Judge of this Court sitting in insolvency has power to stay proceedings pending in respect of the same debtor in a District Court.2. The facts involved are as follows : The appellant, Sarat Chandra Pal, who is the debtor and who carried on business in Calcutta, made an application on 29th October 1927 to the District Judge of Hooghly to be adjudicated an insolvent. That application was made under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. On the application being made, the learned District Judge of Hooghly made an order for the appointment of an interim Receiver. The District Judge further directed that notices should be sent to the debtor's creditors and fixed 5th November 1927, for the hearing of the petition. This data was afterwards altered an ultimately the hearing was fixed for 26th November 1927. The respondents, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kumar Datta and anr. Vs. Nandalal Dubey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal37
Rankin, C. J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for ejectment brought by the same plaintiffs as landlords against the tenant, defendant, Nando Lal Duli.2. The land in question is homestead or bastu land and the area is in each ease about two cottahs. The annual rent is in one case 18 annas and 9 pies and in the other case one rupee six annas and three pies.3. The sole question for decision in each case is whether or not the tenancy of the defendant is a permanent tenancy. Both tenancies are very old and have been traced back to the time of the defendant's grandfather and grandfather's brother. Kabuliats put forward by the plaintiff dated in 1876 and 1846, have been rejected as spurious by both the Courts below. The origin of the tenancies is unknown and the finding is that they have been in existence for about a hundred years. It is proved that they have been held throughout for residential purposes; it is proved that they have been held at the same rate of rent for forty year...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Kumar Chakrabartty Vs. Gadadhar Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal418
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs are zemindars of Kanchanpur, and are proprietors of certain properties mentioned in the plaint. With the consent of all the cosharer proprietors, one Rash Behari Roy was appointed common manager under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of the said properties in the year 1912. Rash Behari Roy having resigned, one Rai Sahib Monomohan Guha, who was defendant 3, in 'the suit was appointed common manager by an order passed by the District Judge on 8th May 1916. Defendant 4 Nalini Kumar Chakrabartty was working in the estate from sometime before as a sub-manager. Prior to his resignation, Rai Sahib Monomohan Guha took leave on 16th January 1920 when he was allowed to leave the station on making over charge of his office to defendant 4. In February 1920 notices were issued inviting applications for filling up the vacancy. Defendant 4 carried oh the duties of a common manager On 1st April 1920 the District Judge passed a further order empowering de...
Tag this Judgment!Bazlar Rahman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal302
1. In this case the four petitioners have been convicted under Section 19(f) of Act 11 of 1878 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.2. The prosecution case is that, acting on certain information, some police officers under a Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector raided a house in village Sailakandi, P.S. Muradnagar and recovered, among other things, 15 cartridges from under a chowki on which the petitioners were sitting conversing together with two people who lived in the house and were also convicted in the case but whose case is not before us on revision. They were Chand Miah and Keramat Ali, the two sons of the owner of the house. Two of the petitioners are Hindus and two are Mahomedans. When the police officers knocked at the door Keramat Ali came out of the door and through the open door the Sub-Inspector saw those who were standing in the room throwing down something from their person. Subsequently, on a search of the house, these 15 cartridge...
Tag this Judgment!Mahim Chandra Banikya and ors. Vs. Karamali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal516
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit commenced by them for recovery of rent in kind for the years 1328 to 1331 B.S.2. The defence of defendant 2 to the suit is that there ought to be a suspension of rent as he has been dispossessed from a portion of the holding by some of the landlords. The Munsif who tried the suit disbelieved the story of dispossession and gave judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal the lower appellate Court remanded the suitso far as it relates to the claim in respect of the years 1329-31, for fresh trial after a local enquiry by a Commissioner, as to whether any part of C.S. dag 1086 has been in possession of the plaintiffs or their cosharers, as alleged by defendant 2.3. A Pleader Commissioner was appointed to investigate if the plaintiffs had encroached on a portion of the holding and he found that the tenant defendants have been dispossessed from 1 katha 1 dhur out of their holding; the Commissioner also found that the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Sarma and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal666
1. This appeal was adjourned in order that the parties, who are close relations, should have an opportunity of considering their position, and arriving at some sensible and reasonable solution of the problem. Unfortunately they have been unable to agree as to what course they would invite the Court to take, and claim the rigour of the law. They shall have it.2. The suit is one for partition, and the parties are the descendants of three brothers, the plaintiffs, the descendants of one; defendants 1 to 3, of the second, and defendant 4 of the third brother. It is not disputed that defendants 1 and 3 are entitled to eight annas share ; neither was it challenged that defendant 4 was entitled to four annas and the plaintiffs to four annas. In 1902 the plaintiffs purchased two annas from defendant 4, and in this suit they claimed a declaration that they were entitled to a six annas share, that the property be partitioned by metes and bounds, and they be allotted khas possession of that share...
Tag this Judgment!Naida Basmi Majhi and ors. Vs. Rajendra Chandra Mala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.353
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants against the order of the District Judge reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge and remanding the case for trial on the merits. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of their title to a certain property. The defendants had obtained a decree against their father Bhairab Mal with regard to this very property and after the death of Bhairab executed that decree as against the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs obtained the property as the legal representatives of their father. In execution of the decree the defendants obtained possession of the property in suit as against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs now bring this suit for declaration of their title to the property as against the defendants on the allegation that the property did not belong to their father and they never took possession of the property as the legal representatives of their lather, but that they inherited the property from their ma...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Dutt Choudhuri and ors. Vs. J.H. Blades
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal843,115Ind.Cas.585
1. In this case an order of discharge was made by the learned Judges of the insolvent by his order dated 3rd January 1927. It seems that the creditors 1 and 2 asked for time on various occasions to file their objection. But, they did not file their objection on 3rd January 1927 nor did they give any indication to the Court as to the reason why they were opposing the final discharge. The creditor who is the appellant before us states that he could not file his objection to the final discharge before the Receiver had submitted his report. This report was submitted on 17th December. 1926, a few days before the Court closed for the Christmas vacation, and it reopened on 3rd January. It is stated on behalf of the creditor that within this short; time he could not make any enquiry on which he could base his petition for objection. This argument does not seem to be very convincing because the Receiver's report is such a short document that within the course of the 5 or 6 days that the Court r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »