Kolkata Court May 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.
Satiranjan Bonerjee and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal514a,122Ind.Cas.546
1. This matter has been brought up from the Court of the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta who passed an order for demolition with regard to a certain structure against the petitioners in these proceedings. The fifth petitioner is the receiver of the premises in question along with various other properties which were the subject-matter of a partition suit before the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas. The ground that has been the subject-matter for argument before us is ground No. 5 of the petition which states that the proceeding is without jurisdiction inasmuch as no leave was obtained from the Court which appointed the receiver. It is not exactly a question of jurisdiction tout reliance has been placed upon the principle that before a receiver is made a party to a proceeding the leave of the Court appointing him should be taken. Reference has been made to the case of W.R. Fink v. Corporation of Calcutta [1903] 30 Cal. 721 which was also the case of an order made by the Municipal Magist...
Suresh Chandra Das Vs. Gobinda Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal306a
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendants who were his tenants and in execution of that decree the defendants' holding was purchased by the plaintiff on 21st March 1918. The plaintiff's case is that he obtained possession of it through Court on 23rd December 1918 but did not get actual possession as the defendants refused to vacate it. The present suit by the plaintiff is for recovery of possession. The plaintiff's suit succeeded in the trial Court but the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed it and hence this appeal by the plaintiff.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has disposed of this case on two principal grounds. The first is that there had been a recognition of the defendants by the plaintiff since his purchase in 1918. On that point his finding is based on the facts that some of the cosharers of the plaintiff brought suits for rent against the defendants after 1918 to which suits the plaintiff was made a pro forma defen...
Biswambar Biswas Vs. Nilambar Murari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal263
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these. On 2nd April 1915, defendant 4 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,450 from defendants 1, 2 and 3. It was secured by a mortgage-deed which stood in the name of defendant 1. On 6th November 1920, it it alleged that defendants 1, 2 and 3 entered into an agreement to sell to the plaintiff the mortgage debt for Rs. 2,100. Plaintiff it is alleged paid the money. The deed of sale was not, however, completed for some reason or other.2. The plaintiff then entered into an agreement with defendants 1, 2 and 3 which was that defendant 1 should bring a suit on the mortgage bond at plaintiff's cost and any money realised would be paid to the plaintiff. The suit was brought on 24th November 1922, defendant 5 who is the appellant now before us being impleaded as a purchaser of the equity of redemption. Defendants 1, 4 and 5 entered into compromise by which it was agreed that the liability of defendant 4 would be fixed at Rs. 2,100,...
Abdul Mannaf and ors. Vs. Mahammad Nurulla Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal506
Mallik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C, made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Noakhali recommending that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Noakhali (Sadar), dated 8th October 1928 be set aside. The facts which have given rise to this reference are briefly these. On 1st September 1928 a report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police whereby he asked the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to draw up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., against Abdul Mannaf and others. This report of the Sub-Inspector came to the Inspector of Police and the Inspector suggested that both parties might be warned. Thereupon on 8th September 1928 the Magistrate issued warning notice on both parties. Nothing further was done in the matter till the 8th October 1928 when the Magistrate passed the following order:Read further police report. Draw up proceedings against the 2nd party under Section 107, Criminal P.C.2. Whereupon proceedings under that section wer...
E.i. Ry. Co. Vs. Janakidas Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal510,122Ind.Cas.545
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of compensation for loss of 24 tins of ghee weighing 11 mds. 10 seers and also of one md. 10 seers of ghee abstracted from out of 20 tin3 of ghee the said 44 tins forming part of a consignment which had been despatched from Sangli station on the M. & S.M. By. to Dubrajpur on E.I. By. The trial Court decreed the suit in part against defendant 1 only, namely, E.I. Ry. The decree was in respect of 24 tins of ghee and not in respect of one md. 10 seers. On appeal this decree was affirmed by the District Judge. Defendant 1, the E.I. Ry. Co. have then preferred this second appeal. The findings of the learned District Judge appeared to be the following : that the consignment was covered by risk-note H, that the plaintiff by virtue of the contract embodied in the said risk-note cannot recover unless he is able to show that one or more complete packages have been lost due either to the wilful neglect of t...
Bhut Nath Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal739
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an open rule for revising the order of the Sub-Divisional officer of Ghatal under Section 110 (a) read with Section 118, Criminal P.C. confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore. Two points which have been stressed before us and require consideration are, first, that the proceeding drawn up under Section 112, Criminal P.C. is illegal and secondly that the learned Judge has misread the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses when ha says that they deposed to the fact of having direct knowledge of the petitioner committing theft.2. As regards the first point it is urged that the notice under Section 112, Criminal P. C, was vague inasmuch as it did not set forth the substance of the information received against the petitioner. Section 112 says that the Magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information. The proceeding drawn up by the Magistrate a copy of which was served on the petitioner was in these words:...
Biswambar Biswas Vs. Nilambar Muhari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.861
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these. On 2nd April, 1915, the defendant No. 4 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,450 from defendants Nos. 1,2 and 3. It was secured by a mortgage-deed which stood in the name of defendant No. 1. On 6th November, 1920, it is alleged that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 entered into an agreement to sell to the plaintiff the mortgage-debt for Rs. 2,100, Plaintiff, it is alleged, paid the money.2. The deed of sale was not, however, completed for some reason or other.3. The plaintiff then entered into an agreement with defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which was that defendant No. 1 should bring a suit on the mortgage-bond at plaintiffs cost and any money realised would be paid to plaintiff. The suit was brought on 24th November, 1922, defendant No. 5 who is the appellant now before us being impleaded as the purchaser of the equity of redemption. Defendant No. 1, defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 5 entered into a compromise by which it wa...
Abhoy Charan Modak Vs. Ram Sunder Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal109
1. In this case the plaintiff who is the appellant brought a suit to recover khas possession of the lands of schedules kha and ga to the plaint on the allegation that the said lands were khas khamar lands appertaining to seven piece share of the patni which originally belonged to defendant 1's father Ram Nath Shah and which was purchased subsequently by the plaintiff in an auction sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 1's father who was a patnidar to the extent of seven pice share in the patni had purchased certain holdings under the patni and was in possession of them. The patni right of defendant 1's father having been sold defendant had no right to retain possession of the khas land which passed with the patni to the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of the schedule kha land but decreed it in respect of ga. The lower appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiff confirmed the decree of the trial Court dismissin...
Shawal Ram Dungarmal and Co. Vs. Tansukhdash Bhupatram and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal154
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that two firms agreed to transact business in jute jointly upon certain terms. The joint business has been referred to as the Ejmali firm and this is a more convenient designation than the style which was adopted for that business and which appears to have been changed at least once. The business began in 1320 B.S. and the findings of the learned Judge of the Court below and the evidence make the course of business in its outline reasonably clear. The defendant firm who are the appellants before us were in business at a place called Pearpur where they had godowns and where they had facilities for the purchase of jute. The plaintiff firm was a firm in Calcutta which appears to have dealt in jute and indeed in other things not only in Calcutta but at various mokams or places in different parts of the province. The jute when it was purchased was sold by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs provided the capital for the joint concern not in the sense that t...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. T.H.E. Edwards
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal487
1. The short facts necessary for the purposes of this judgment are as follows : Edwards is a ratepayer of the Corporation of Calcutta and he has his house in Burdwan Road at Alipur. Immediately to the south of his house, there is another house belonging to a gentleman, Amulyadhan Addy, and tenanted by D.M. Bay. In the compound of this last mentioned house, were erected certain huts with cutcha floorings, in which were kept a number of cows, goats and horses. The result was that the whole place was turned insanitary and Edwards complained to the Corporation of Calcutta for the purpose of inducing the latter to take action to prevent or abate the nuisance. Nothing was apparently done and, in the last resort, Edwards complained before the Municipal Magistrate under Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no nuisance and redused to pass any order. The matter then came to this Court and, after an examination of the record, this Court passe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »