Kolkata Court July 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.
In Re: the Bar Councils Act
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal574
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears to me to be necessary that this Court should exercise its power under Clause 4, Section 12, Bar Councils Act, and refer the matter back to the tribunal through the Bar Council. A complaint was made against the advocate in question. The High Court did not think fit to summarily reject the complaint and was obliged, therefore, to refer the case for enquiry to the Bar Council. It was referred to the tribunal and it appears that, after certain evidence had been taken on affidavits on 22nd June 1929, a letter was produced from the solicitor of the complainant to say that he had a talk with the advocate concerned and had to inform the Bar Council that his client did not wish to proceed with the matter further, and that he therefore withdrew the complaint. On this the tribunal has reported. 'In these circumstances, the enquiry cannot further be proceeded with.' With the greatest possible respect to the learned lawyers who composed that tribunal, the posi...
In Re: the Bar Council Act
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.558
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears to me to be necessary that this Court should exercise its power under Clause 4, Section 12, Bar Councils Act, and refer the matter back to the tribunal through the Bar Council. A complaint was made against the Advocate in question. The High Court did not think fit to summarilyreject the complaint and was obliged, therefore, to refer the case for enquiry to the Bar Council. It was referred to the tribunal and it appears that, after certain evidence had been taken on affidavits on 22nd June, 1929, a letter was produced from the Solicitor of the complainant to say that he had a talk with the Advocate concerned and had to inform the Bar Council that his client did not wish to proceed with the matter farther, and that he, therefore, withdrew the complaint. On this the tribunal has reported: 'In, these circumstances, the enquiry cannot further be proceeded with.' With the greatest possible respect to the learned lawyers who composed that tr...
Gopal Chandra Rudra and anr. Vs. Khater Karikar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal262
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiffs' suit is for recovery of possession of certain land. Mitter, J. agreeing with the Courts below, has dismissed the suit. On this Letters Patent appeal, the learned advocate for the plaintiff contends that in view of Section 85, Ben. Ten. Act defendant 4, who alone contests the suit and contests it in respect of four plots only out of the suit lands is a mere trespasser so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. The plaintiffs are the landlords and defendants 15 to 18 hold the disputed lands as raiyats under the plaintiffs. The tenant defendants defaulted in payment of rent and the plaintiffs, having obtained a decree against them, purchased the disputed land on 23rd March 1922. The case for defendant 4 is that he took settlement of the four plots of land of which he is in possession from one Rupchand, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 15 to 18 by means of a registered patta in the year 1310 B.S., i.e., 1903. No notice has been served on him under Section 1...
Sulav Chandra Das Vs. Prafulla Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal755
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Goalpara, dated 12th February 1929, ordering further enquiry into the case in which the petitioner was charged under Section 380, I.P.C. The only ground that the Magistrate found for further enquiry is stated by him in these words:With regard to the evidence, the contention that the learned Magistrate has taken an entirely wrong view of the evidence with the result that there has been a miscarriage of justice appears to be not without foundation. I consider it desirable in the interest of justice that the case should be further enquired into.2. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Magistrate and find that the trial Magistrate has carefully scanned the evidence and come to the conclusion that the case against the accused is at least very doubtful. It is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence and the learned District Magistrate has not done so; but we are of opinion that the view taken by the trial Ma...
Rajani Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Sambhu Nath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal710
S.K. Ghose, J.1. Plaintiffs sue for partition of a plot of land described as 'Bairagi Bari' alleging that they have purchased four-fifths share of the tenancy right and defendants have purchased the remaining one-fifth share. Plaintiffs and defendants have small shares in the landlord's interest, the entire 16 annas of that interest being held by a large number of persons. The defence is that plaintiffs have no title except by virtue of the superior interest and that the property falls within the joint estate only up to a certain extent, the rest being in another estate. Plaintiffs won in the first Court, but they lost in the Court of appeal below. They now come in second appeal.2. In this appeal the first point is whether plaintiffs have proved their tenancy right to the land in suit. Plaintiffs base their right upon three conveyances, namely: (1) Ex. 1 which is an unregistered deed bearing date 4th Sravan 1308 in respect of a one-fifth share of the tenancy right for a sum below Rs. 1...
Sulav Chandra Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.246
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Goalpara, dated the 12th February, 1929, ordering further enquiry into the case in which the petitioner was charged under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. The only ground that the Magistrate found for further enquiry is stated by him in these words: 'With regard to the evidence, the contention that the learned Magistrate has taken an entirely wrong view of the evidence with the result that there has been a miscarriage of justice appears to be not without foundation. I consider it desirable in the interests of justice that the case should be further enquired into.' We have gone through the judgment of the trial Magistrate and find that the trial Magistrate has carefully scanned the evidence and come to the conclusion that the case against the accused is at least very doubtful. It is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence and the learned District Magistrate has not done so; but we are of opinion that the view ta...
In Re: Ganga Sagor, Ananda Mohan Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal178
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, was directed by an order made by this Court on 13th December 1927, to state a case for the opinion of the Court whether or not the assessees were entitled to be treated for income-tax purposes as a Hindu undivided family. The Commissioner of Income-tax has accordingly stated a c&se; for the opinion of the Court.2. The facts found by the Commissioner of Income-tax are as follows : It appears that four brothers governed by the Dayabhagha school of Hindu Law named Ganga Sagar, Ananda Mohan, Broja Mohan and Hari Mohan Shaha, who were members of a Hindu undivided family started a business many many years ago. These four brothers are dead and their sons and grandsons are now carrying on the business. The places of business at present are, among others, Calcutta, Dacca, and Backerganj, the head office being at Dacca. For many years past, the heirs of the said four brothers have drawn moneys separately from the business th...
Khettra Mohan Dey and Co. Vs. Benode Behary Sadhu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal382
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff brought the suit for damages for the refusal on the part of the defendant to deliver to him certain quantity of rape seed cake. The contract between the parties was as follows : The appellant was the buyer and the respondent was the seller. The contract was 300 tons of rape seed cake at a certain price per maund; terms cash on delivery-Delivery-January and February 1927.2. Now, the first thing to observe is that it is now agreed on all hands that the meaning of the stipulation for delivery was that one-half of the goods, namely 150 tons, should be delivered in January and the balance in February. The defendant was ready and willing to deliver 150 tons in January, but the plaintiff was not ready and willing to take delivery or to make payment therefor. So far, therefore, as we are concerned with case, it is a case where at the end of January one-half of the contract was unperformed. Thereupon, the defendant wrote to say that 150 tons being read...
Sayamali Molla Vs. AnisuddIn Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal609
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The facts of the ease giving rise to this reference are these: One Bainuddin mortgaged a plot of land to defendant 1 in 1904. In 1908 he again mortgaged this piece of land with another plot (No. 2 in the schedule of the plaint) to the plaintiff. Defendant 1 (who will be referred to as the defendant) brought his suit on his mortgage in 1911 without impleading the plaintiff and obtained a decree for sale against the mortgagor alone on 30th November 1911. Plaintiff brought a suit to enforce his mortgage in 1915. He made the present defendant a defendant in the suit along with the mortgagor and a transferee from him. The defendant set up his prior mortgage and plaintiff's suit as against him was dismissed as the plaintiff did not ask for any decree against him. Plaintiff obtained the usual decree for sale as against the other defendants in that suit on 8th May 1915. Defendant in this case put the property mortgaged to him to sale in execution of his mortgage decree and pur...
In Re: Ganga Sagar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.312
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. In this matter the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, was directed by an order made by this Court on the 13th December, 1927, to state a case for the opinion of the Court whether or not the assessees were entitled to be treated for income-tax purposes as a Hindu undivided family. The Commissioner of Income Tax has accordingly stated a case for the opinion of the Court.2. The facts found by the Commissioner of Income Tax are as follows: It appears that four brothers governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law named Ganga Sagar, Ananda Mohan, Brojo Mohan and Hari Mohan Shah, who were members of a Hindja undivided family, started a business many years ago. These four brothers are dead and their sons and grandsons are now carrying on the business. The places of business at present are, among others, Calcutta, Dacca and Backerganj, the head office being at Dacca. For many years past, the heirs of the said four brothers have drawn monies separately from the busin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »