Kolkata Court February 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.
(Hazi) TilloIn Mahammad Umar Buksh Vs. B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal700
Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Judge of the 24 Parganas and the case has reference to a consignment of oranges in a wagon from Nagpur to Howrah upon the terms of a certain Risk-Note in Form H. The goods were consigned on 4th April 1923 and they were to go by passenger train and the wagon commenced its journey on 5th April. Apparently the wagon was not in a fit condition for travel because after some forty miles it was found that its axle was too hot. Thereupon it became necessary to transfer the goods to another wagon and much complaint is made that this was not done with sufficient celerity. It is said that this operation was not completed until the 8th. The wagon into which the goods were put again became unfit for travel and at Bilaspur the goods had to be once more transhipped. These goods which had been put on rail on 4th April did not arrive at Howrah until 12th April. It would appear that they were fresh oranges...
Haji Tilloi Muhammad Umer Buksh Vs. the Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.33
George Clause Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Judge of the 24 Parganas and the case has reference to a consignment of oranges in a wagon from Nagpur to Howrah upon the terms of a certain Risk Note in Form H. The goods were consigned on the 4th of April, 1923, and they were to go by passenger train and the wagon commenced its journey on the 5th of April. Apparently the wagon was not in a fit condition for travel because after some forty miles it was, found that its axle was too hot. Thereupon it became necessary to transfer the goods to another wagon and much complaint is made that this was not done with sufficient celerity. It is said that this operation was not completed until the 8th. The wagon into which the goods were put again became unfit for travel and at Bilaspur the goods had to be once more transshipped. These goods which had been put on Rail on the 4th April did not arrive at Howrah until the 12th April. It...
Dwarka Nath Chakravarty Vs. Imperial Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal529
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the Subordinate Judge dated 11th April 1928, rejecting the objection of the judgment-debtor to the execution of the decree which was transferred from the original side of this Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The objection of the judgment-debtor in the Court below was this: The decree-holders had attached certain properties consisting of shares in some companies which they allege belong to the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree under an order of the High Court. They asked for transfer of the decree in the Alipur Court under Section 39, Civil P.C. The decree-holders gave an undertaking to the High Court that the properties attached by that Court shall not be sold until the properties attached by the Alipur Court have been sold. The objection of the judgment-debtor was that the High Court had no jurisdiction to send the decree for execution to the Alipur Court under the provisions of Section...
Rajani Kanta Deb and ors. Vs. Bashiram Mestari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal636,121Ind.Cas.409
Rankin, C. J.1. In this case the plaintiff brings his suit for arrears of rent and he is met with a defence to the effect that the suit for rent is bad because the plaintiff has title only to four annas share of the superior interest and he has not proved or did assert any right to a separate collection of his share of rent. The suit not being brought in accordance with the special provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act which enable a cosharer by suing the other cosharers to claim a part of the rent the whole suit is defeated unless the plaintiff can show himself to be entitled to sixteen annas of the rent. Mr Brojo Lal Chakarvarty for the appellant does not dispute that proposition as a matter of law. The contest in this case is whether or not the learned Subordinate Judge has correctly dealt with the issues which arise upon the question whether or not the plaintiff has made out his title to the whole of the rent.2. Now it appears that at first sight there is something startling about t...
Asmatulla Pramanik Vs. Gamir Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.215
Pearson, J.1. The facts here are as follows: The land in suit was a non-transferable occupancy holding belonging to one J. N. Moitra and held under him by two brothers Jadab and Madhab in equal shares. The holding was brought to sale by the landlord for arrears of rent and purchased by himself in 1915. In 1916 Jadab mortgaged his half share to plaintiff. In February 1917, the two brothers sold a portion of the jote to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 in the present suit. In 1918 plaintiff sued on his mortgage against Jadab making defendant No. i and defendant No. 2 also parties; the suit was decreed in March 1919 on compromise against Jadab and ex parte as regards defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. On the 22nd June, 1921, Jadab's half share was brought to sale in execution and purchased by plaintiff. Upon his going to take possession he was resisted by defend-ant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 on the ground that they had taken a settlement from the landlord in January, 1918 Hence the p...
Dwarka Nath Chuckerbutty Vs. Imperial Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.289
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 11th of April, 1928, rejecting the objection of the judgment-debtor to the execution of the decree which was transferred from the Original Side of this Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The objection of the judgment-debtor in the Court below was this: The decree-holders had attached certain properties consisting of shares in some companies which they allege belong to the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree under an order of the High Court. They asked for transfer of the decree to the Alipur Court under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holders gave an undertaking to the High Court that the properties attached by that Court shall not be sold until the properties attached by the Alipur Court have been sold. The objection of the judgment-debtor was that the High Court had no jurisdiction to send the decree for execution to the Alipur Court under...
Gowal Das Sidany Vs. Luchmi Chand Jhawar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal324
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case, the petitioner instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of money due under a deed of charge and, obtained a decree, under which the property charged was put up for sale by the Registrar and one Khagendrahath Sen was declared the highest bidder and purchaser and paid Rs. 7,500 as deposit under the conditions-of sale. Subsequently, he failed to pay the balance of the purchase money. The petitioner now asks that the deposit of Rs. 7,500 be declared forfeited. He states that he decided to treat the contract as rescinded and does not, therefore, ask for an order against the purchaser to pay any deficiency arising on a resale.2. My attention has been drawn to Order 21 Rule. 86, Civil P.C., which provides that in sales of immovable property by the Court, any deposit made under Section 84 may, if the Court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to Government and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forf...
Noai Chowkidar and ors. Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal527
1. This is a rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the lower appellate Court complained of should not be reversed and the sale set aside as prayed for in the petition. The rule was prayed for on two grounds. But neither of them has been urged before us now. The only ground on which the rule is pressed is that the order of the lower appellate Court was passed in favour of a dead person, namely, Major Raily who died in England on 1st January 1928 and that, therefore, it is a nullity. The rule was obtained on 27th April 1928 against Major Raily of whose death neither party was aware and also against another person. There is no doubt that an order passed against a dead person would be a nullity, but there are authorities showing that where an order was passed in favour of a dead person, it is not altogether and in all circumstances a nullity. In the case of Vellayan Chetty v. Jothi Mahalinga Aiyar [1915] 39 Mad. 386, the practice in England on which our law is b...
Nani Lal Mandal Vs. Priya Nath Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal545
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the question is whether the claim by the plaintiff must be deemed to be subject to the special rule of limitation laid down by the Bengal Tenancy Act. That rule of limitation gives three years only for the bringing of the plaintiff's claim. Now the claim is in respect of rent of a jalkar. But the question before us depends to some extent on whether that description is adequate and sufficient and we have to turn in this case to the language of the memorandum of agreement between the parties. That agreement is an agreement in writing dated 4th January 1918, and according to the English translation be-fore us it is called a memorandum of agreement for lease for a term of three years in respect of the right to fishery over two pieces of bheri land. The first of these two pieces of bheri land is described as Gobardanga bheri surrounded on all sides by embankment. The second piece of Bheri land is described as Santiram Nashkar bheri land surrounded on all sides by...
Ambika Ranjan Mujumdar Vs. Manikganj Loan Office, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal818
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order refusing to set aside the sale of certain properties in execution of a decree obtained by the respondent and purchased by him. The first objection refers to certain properties within the districts of Pabna and Rangpur. The properties were sold by the Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction in the district of Dacca. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that under Section 39, Civil P. C, the Court which passed the decree for money could sell properties belonging to the judgment-debtor situate outside its jurisdiction. He comes to that conclusion, because in Section 39 the language is that:the Court which passed a decree may send it for execution to another Court.2. He held that the word 'may' does not mean 'shall' or 'must.' Having come to that conclusion he held that the Court which passed the decree could execute the decree by selling properties situate outside its territorial jurisdiction. There cannot be any doubt that this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »