Kolkata Court July 1929 Judgments
Surendra Nath Choudhury and ors. Vs. Barisal Loan Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal313
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows : Defendants 5 and 6 were the holders of a nimhowla right in a certain property described as property No. 1 under the howladar one Bepin Behary Ghose on the basis of a kabuliyat dated 13th Chaitra 1301 B.S. Bepin was defendant 49 in this suit and he died during the pendency of the suit. It appears that Bepin obtained a rent decree against defendants 5 and 6 and in execution of the said decree, he purchased the nimhowla in question on 15th April 1906. On 1st Chaitra 1314 B.S. corresponding with 14th March 1908, Bepin mortgaged property 1 and certain other properties to the plaintiff company. The date of repayment under the mortgage was some time in May 1908. On 12th March 1909, defendants 5 and 6 made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside the sale of the nimhowla. Meanwhile it appears that Bepin had instituted a rent suit against one Felu and others in respect of a Miras ka...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Hing Vs. I.N. Silas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal713
Jack, J.1. The petitioner is one of the proprietors of the Chinese Theatre Studio on Chittaranjan Avenue. He has been convicted under Section 290, I.P.C., of committing a public nuisance by the annoyance caused by the sounds made by his theatre band, in connexion with performances at the theatre from 12 noon to 4 p. m. and 8 p. m. to midnight every day.2. The only ground for revision seriously urged is that the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of a public nuisance inasmuch as it has not been shown that annoyance has been caused to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity in accordance with the terms of Section 268, I.P.C. defining 'public nuisance.' On this point the finding of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate is as follows:It is suggested that this is not a public but a private nuisance. Some Mahomedans have bean called by the complainant to help him over the difficulty. I doubt if their grievance is very genuine. I imagin...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Chandra Dutt Vs. Chairman, Municipal Commrs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal38
Page, J.1. This a suit for a declaration that the assessment of a rate under Section 85(b), Bengal Municipal Act (3 of 1884) on the annual value of the plaintiff-appellant's holding by the Commissioners of the Panihati Municipality was ultra vires and illegal.2. The decision turns upon the true construction of Section 101 of the Act which runs as follows:101. The gross annual rent at which any holding may be reasonably expected to let shall be deemed to be the annual value thereof and such value shall accordingly be determined by the Commissioner, and entered in the valuation list; provided that (except in the Darjeeling Municipality) if there be on a holding any building or buildings the actual cost of erection of which can be ascertained or estimated the annual value of such holding shall in no case be deemed to exceed an amount which would be equal to seven and a half per centum on such cost, in addition to a reasonable ground rent for the land comprised in the holding.3. It appears...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Haldar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal136
Lort-Williams, J.1. The accused Natabar Haldar alias Natak was tried before the learned Sessions Judge at Barisal with a jury under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the death of one Karim Shah. Along with the accused his brother Nandabashi was also tried under Section 302 read with Section 114, I.P.C. for abetting him. He was acquitted. The case of the prosecution was that the two accused brothers, Nandabashi and Natabar, lived together and were tenants of Abdul Kader Talukdar of Chatra. Narendra Nath Bose was the landlord's Tahsildar and Karim Shah was his Mridha. In the afternoon of Tuesday 27th March 1928 Narendra (with Karim) had gone to the Bari of the two brothers where he found them and also Mahommad Shah and Abdul Karim Rari.2. There was some conversation and Narendra demanded the rent due from the brothers. Nandabasi said that they were unable to pay them and the Tahsildar and Karim were about to depart when Nandabasi invited them, to the inner hut at the north Viti of the Bari...
Tag this Judgment!Ratikanta Moyra Vs. Sanaton Baidya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal147
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The facts in this case are so novel that I have never coma across anything like it in my experience. A preliminary decree was passed in a suit for partition. That decree was appealed against and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. On second appeal, again, that decree was affirmed by the High Court. Thus the preliminary decree was affirmed by the highest Court in the land. When it went back to the trial Court to make the final decree for partition, the learned Munsif discovered that the property was worth more than the pecuniary limit of his jurisdiction and he took the extraordinary course of returning the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. The plaint had already merged in a decree and it is inconceivable how it struck the learned Munsif that the plaint could be returned at that stage. He held that the decree was a nullity, because he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit when it was presented. No objection, was taken to the valuation by the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Seal Vs. Benode Behary Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal495
Rankin, C.J.1. The dispute in this case has reference to the shebait right in respect of the deity Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar founded and established by one Madhab Chandra Seal, a Hindu Inhabitant of Calcutta who died in 1866. By his Will made in 1861 and a codicil thereto he had dedicated a certain house, now known as No. 12, Madan Butt's Lane, and made certain provisions in that behalf.2. The first question which arises upon this appeal is the question whether upon a true construction of this will the persons who from time to time should be trustees under the Will were made shebaits and were given power to appoint new shebaits from time to time. It is expressly conceded on behalf of the appellant Ashutosh Seal, one of the defendants to the suit, that if this question of construction be answered in the negative, he cannot claim under the original foundation any greater right than the decree under appeal has given to him in the office of shebait. The learned Counsel for the appellant has als...
Tag this Judgment!Yadali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal779
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 500 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. There were two items forming the subject-matter of the charge One of them was certain imputations made orally as against the complainant and the other consisted of certain statements made in a petition which the petitioner had filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore. As regards the first of these items the evidence that was brought to establish it was not accepted as reliable by the trial Magistrate. The conviction is based upon the statements contained in the petition to which I have referred. Those statements are to the effect that the complainant was threatening the petitioner with assault and also with murder, imprisonment and so forth ; and that the complainant was giving out that he would institute civil as well as criminal cases against the accused and further that the complainant belonged to ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Mahammad and ors. Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police of C.i.D.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal361
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule was issued on ground No. 9 which is to this effect: For that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal or to lodge the complaint. The facts are that the petitioner sued the defendants upon a hatchita in the Court of the Munsiff at Raigunje in the District of Dinajpore, and on behalf of the defendants the suit was contested by the opposite party D. I. G., 0. I. D., Bengal. The suit was transferred by the order of the District Judge from Raigunje to the Munsiff at Dinajpore. The petitioner applied to the Munsiff for leave to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It was refused and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter the opposite party applied to the Munsiff for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 476, Criminal P.C. on charges under Sections 120-B, 109, 209, 471, I.P.C., etc. The application was refused by the Munsiff and the opposite party prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Prasad Chaliha Vs. Secy. of State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal471
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by a claimant against an order of the Additional Judge, Assam Valley Districts. A piece of land, measuring 4 bighas odd within the municipal area of Sibsagar was acquired by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. A large area was acquired along with the piece of land in question in this appeal. The Collector awarded Rs. 141 as compensation for the lands to the claimant. The appellant made an application for reference to the Court on 2nd September 1926, in which he claimed Rs. 2,500 as the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 500 per bigha. Thereupon the Collector made a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, dated 27th October 1926, in which he stated that the appellant had not accepted the award made by him. In that letter of reference the Collector further stated that special notice was served upon the objector on 24th February 1926 and he further mentions the fact that the objector asked for Rs. 500 per bigha being awarded ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendra Sundar Banerji Vs. Niladrinath Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal661
Rankin, C.J.1. Rai Bankim Chandra Chatterjee Bahadur died in 1894 leaving a widow and two daughters. The first daughter had four sons and the second three sons. The widow and both daughters are now dead. In his will no mention was made of the land with which this case is concerned. The widow in due course got letters of administration to his estate with the will annexed. In 1926 land acquisition proceedings began and certain land was compulsorily acquired in the widow's lifetime. The compensation money Rs. 2,000 was kept in deposit under Section 31(2), Land Acquisition Act. In 1919 the widow died. One daughter had predeceased her and the other died in 1927. Thereupon, in 1928, three sons of the daughter who had first died made applications to the Subordinate Judge for succession certificates with reference to the share due to each in the compensation money. A son of the other daughter objected to these applications but the certificates were granted. Thereupon he appealed to the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »