Kolkata Court December 1929 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.
Ramesh Chandra Sil and anr. Vs. Charu Chandra Mohuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal590,129Ind.Cas.622
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order passed by the District Judge of Chittagong on 14th February 1928 by which he ordered the heirs of one Hargobinda Sil against whom a petition had been presented for declaring him an insolvent to be brought on the record as necessary parties for the limited purpose of being present for the realization and distribution of the property of the debtor. The respondents urged that no appeal is maintainable from this order because the order in its nature is an interlocutory one and should not be regarded as one from which an appeal is allowed under the law. Now, in deciding the question as to whether an appeal should or should not be held maintainable even though the leave of the Court has been obtained under Section 75, Sub-section (3), Prov. Insol. Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code may well be looked into as a guide for the determination of the question. That has been held in the case of Munnu Lalv. Kunj Bihari Lal A.I.R 1922 Ail 2...
Khagendra Nath Bose Vs. Prafulla Kumar Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal170
1. The final decree in a suit for partition, in which there were several parties, provided amongst others that two of the parties, namely the plaintiff and defendant 1, would get the following allotments:Plaintiff-Lot A (6 K. 9 Ch. 31 Sq. ft.) and Lot B (7 K 5 Ch. 31 Sq. ft.).2. Defendant 1 - Lot C (18 K. 14 Ch. 30 Sq. ft.); Lot D (5 K. 12 Ch. 6 Sq. ft.) and Lot E 3 K 4 Ch. 18 Sq. ft.).3. Defendant 1 applied for execution of the decree and obtained delivery of possession of the three lots as demarcated on the spot by a commissioner. The plaintiff then applied for execution, and when a commissioner appointed to give him possession went to measure the lots, he found that of the two Lots B and E which lay contiguous to each other, Lot B, as it appeared on the spot-would, not give the area 7 K. 5 Ch. 31 Sq. ft. as contemplated by the decree. This, he found, was due to two causes, first, that a portion of the land on its west side had been encroached upon by some third parties; and second, ...
Sarat Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Hari Charan De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal282
1. This matter comes before us under somewhat peculiar circumstances and having regard to the lapse, of time since the date of the original rule in this case being Civil Revision No. 10 of 192S, namely, 3rd May 1929, it is desirable to set out the facts which have given rise to the present application, on 24th September 1929. They are as follows : It appears that petitioner 1 was plaintiff in a certain, suit in the Court of the Munsiff of Karimganj in the District of Sylhet. The three other petitioners were his witnesses in the case. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the Munsiff on 5th October 1926. There was an appeal to the District Judge, but it was dismissed. A second appeal thereafter to this Court was summarily rejected under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C. What has happened since then, shortly stated, is this. One of the defendants named Gopinath made an application to the Munsiff, who had succeeded the Munsiff who had tried the case in the first instance, fo...
Ghasiram Goenka Vs. Haribux Goberdhonedas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal477,136Ind.Cas.535
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by Haribux Goberdhonedas that a consent decree made by my learned brother Buckland J., on, 14th August last be set aside.2. The suit was one for Rs. 3052-9-2,-being the price of goods sold and delivered, the applicants being impleaded as guarantors. The applicants entered1 appearance and filed a written statement by which they put the factum of the guarantee in issue. The suit came on for hearing on 11th August last. Mr. B.C. Ghose was briefed as counsel for the defendants to ask for an adjournment. He applied for the adjournment which was refused and he was thereupon instructed to continue to represent the defendants in the ease itself, the brief having previously been delivered to him. The applicant's account of the only important incident with which I am concerned is to be found in para. 10 of their petition which runs as follows:A short time after the case was opened by Mr. A.K. Roy who appeared for the plaintiff Mr. Boy read to his Lordship ...
M.A. Cunningham Sircar Vs. Fred Stephens
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal51
Lort-Wllliams, J.1. In this matter the petitioner asks that an order made by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court should be set aside.2. The point has arisen owing to these facts. There was a decree made in a suit brought by the plaintiff, F. Stephens, against T. and M. Bateman, who were the trustees under a certain deed. His suit was for the return of deposit made on an agreement for sale of the trust property. During the pendency of this suit, proceedings were taken by the present petitioner to have the Batemans removed from their trusteeship, and two or three days before the decree in Stephens' suit was passed, the Batemans expressed their desire and intention to resign from the trusteeship. Three days after the decree in Stephens' suit, the Batemans wore removed by the Court in Mrs. Sircar's the present petitioner's suit, and she was appointed trustee. It is true that the Batemans were sued in Stephens' suit as trustees, but the decree was by consent in favour of the plaintif...
ismail Biswas and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal289
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 430, I.P.C., that is, of committing mischief by doing an act which caused or which they knew to be likely to cause a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes. This offence is perhaps a particularly grave form of the offence of committing mischief which is denned in Section 425.Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously.2. Now it appears that the tank in question is in the middle of two others. It appears that the complainant has a channel from which he has been getting the water of the tank in question to irrigate his lands. The finding of the Courts below is that the petitioners have cut a new channel in another part of t...
Sailendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal614,129Ind.Cas.572
1. This appeal was tiled by one Lakshmi Mani Dasi, as decree-holder appellant against the judgment-debtor and a claimant one Surendra Nath De as respondents. The application for execution was filed by the original' decree-holder. The decree was one for money passed by the High Court on its original side on 19th January 1925. It was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Judge of Howrah, to which a certificate of non-satisfaction was sent by the High Court, original side. The execution petition was registered in the Court of the Additional District Judge on 23rd August 1926. Under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., notices were issued, and then notices under Order 21, Rule 56, Civil P.C. In January 1927 the original decree-holder died. On 14th February 1927 the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder being his three sons, all minors, represented by their mother Lakshmi Mani Dasi, entered appearance and prayed to be substituted in the place of the said deceased. O...
Muktal HosseIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal362
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the accused have been convicted under Sections 363 and 367, I.P.C. and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. It is not necessary to consider the various points which have been urged before us in appeal by the learned advocate appearing for them, as We think it enough if we refer to one objection which is to the effect that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not give sufficient opportunity to the accused to examine the witnesses for the defence. It appears from the record that before the Magistrate the accused had submitted presumably under Section 211, Criminal P.C. a list of 19 witnesses to be examined at the trial on their behalf. Before the prosecution case was closed the defence pleader on 13th March 1929 prayed for calling for certain records from the District Magistrate's room and for summoning three defence witnesses for the following day. The learned Judge ordered that the records should be called for and directed the District Magistrate to su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›