Kolkata Court August 1929 Judgments
Probhat Chandra Adhikari and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal366
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears, that while the Sadar Sub-Registrar of Pabna was sitting on a judicial proceeding certain persons who. were, deed writers finding fault with a certain ruling which he had given about the alteration of a figure in a deed came into his room and insulted him and caused interruption to his duty. The Sub-Registrar made a complaint to this effect to the District Registrar who happened also to be the District Magistrate and at the end of his recital of the circumstances he says that the accused persons may be prosecuted under Section 228, I.P.C. The District Magistrate apparently in his double capacity sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for disposal and the Sub-Divisional Officer apparently summoned the accused under Section 228. In the meantime at the earliest possible moment the accused made an application to the Additional Sessions Judge taking several objections to the proceedings and this application was rejected. Thereupon the accused obta...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Chandra Adhikary and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.853
George Clause Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that while the Sadar Sub-Registrar of I Pabna was sitting on a judicial proceeding certain persons who were deed-writers 1 finding fault with a certain ruling which, he had given about the alteration of a figure in a deed came into his room and insulted him and caused interruption to his duty. The 1 Sub-Registrar made a complaint to this effect to the District Registrar who happened also to be the District Magistrate and at the end of his recital of the circumstances he says that the accused persons may be prosecuted under Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Magistrate apparently in his double capacity sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for disposal and the Sub-Divisional Officer apparently summoned the accused under Section 228. In the meantime at the earliest possible moment the accused made an application to the Additional Sessions Judge taking several objections to the proceedings and this application was ...
Tag this Judgment!Carr Lazarus Phillips and ors. Vs. Alfred Ernest Mitchell and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal17
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In my opinion this appeal should be allowed and I will state my reasons. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows : One J.C. Galstaun, who is-the owner of very considerable house and landed properties in and outside Calcutta, was in financial difficulties in the early part of 1927. There were several decrees against Galstaun and ho was unable to satisfy the same. He applied to one Arrathoon Stephen for a loan of Rs. 40,00,000 to enable him' to pay off the amounts of the said decrees as well as certain other liabilities. Stephen borrowed from the Imperial Bank of India a sum of Rs. 40,00,000 for the accommodation of Galstaun and the latter on receipt of the amount executed n mortgage on 14th February 1927 in favour of Stephen for the purpose of securing the loan of Rs. 40,00,000 undertaking to pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum by equal monthly instalments with quarterly rests until payment. Stephen it appears, agreed to obtain t...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhinkumar Pal and ors. Vs. Asgar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal797,129Ind.Cas.774
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These appeals arise out; of several suits brought by different-persons for declaration of their right to and recovery of possession of certain lands, on the ground that these lands appertained to their several tenures under defendants 1 to 4, who are the zamindars with regard to the property in question. A mourasi mokarrari tenure of be bighas odd was held by two persons, Ramsebak Biswas and Ramgati Biswas, the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 5 to 9. The tenure was reduced to some extent by acquisitions being made by the Government for constructing embankments. Nothing turns upon that fact. The original tenure-holders subsequently sold specific plots of land to the plaintiffs in the different suits, out of which the appeals before us have arisen. The zamindar landlords recognized these different sales and constituted the different plots of land so sold into different tenures bearing separate shares of the original rent. Subsequently it appears that there were du...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuranath Ray Chaudhuri Vs. Janakinath Ray Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal804
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff brought a partition suit and, after certain terms of settlement had been arrived at, obtained a final decree. This final decree was to the effect that the possession, delivered over to each of the parties after making separate allotments of the moveables and immovables according to a certain award, be declared as the final delivery of possession to the parties and that the parties do respectively bear all kinds of costs incurred in the suit up to 30th June 1923 : that the value of the stamp to the extent of Rs. 5,013-12-0 for the preparation of the decree, which the plaintiff had put in, be borne by the plaintiff to the extent of his share, namely Rs. 1,641-4-0, and of the balance Rs. 1,671-4-0 be borne by each of the defendants 1 and 2 respectively. That decree was made in 1923 and it appears that certain execution proceedings were taken in 1926. Until August 1928, neither defendant 1 nor defendant 2 put in his share of the decretal amount wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ganendra Mohan Bhaduri and anr. Vs. Bhavani Charan Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal468
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the executor of the Will of Babu Rajendra Lal Goswarni against an order of the District Judge affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly holding that the respondents were entitled to execute the decree of this Court. The decree was made by Chaudhuri, J., dated February 1919. It was transmitted to the Hooghly Court for execution. An objection was taken by the appellants that the decree was void and without jurisdiction and, therefore, it was not capable of execution. The point in controversy arises out of proceedings in arbitration under the Arbitration Act which, it is admitted by the respondent, were very irregular. The dispute between the parties was referred to the arbitration of the late Mr. Byomkesh Chuckerbutty. He made an award which was filed under Section 11, Sub-section 2, Arbitration Act (9 of 1899). It does not appear what happened after the award was filed. But it appears that all the parties agreed to certain modification...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kharkharee Collieries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1932Cal76
Buckland, J.1. This is an application made in the matter of the Kharkharee Collieries, Limited, in liquidation, by certain secured creditors, who have filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dhanbad on their mortgage of the properties of the company, for leave to proceed with the suit and for an order that the Official Liquidator do make over to the receiver appointed in that suit, the properties mortgaged, of which he is in possession. The suit was filed on 22nd March 1929, and the winding-up order was made by this Court on 10th June.2. The winding-up order having been made, Section 171 would apply and no suit or other proceeding may be proceeded with against the company, except by the leave of the Court.3. As regards proceeding with the suit, no objection has 'been made. The petitioners are secured creditors, and it may be convenient that the amount due to them upon their mortgage should be ascertained in the suit which is in progress. The mortgage, I should mention, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendranath Sen and ors. Vs. Behari Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal450
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These appeals are by the defendants 1 to 3 in the suits which have been decreed by the Additional District Judge affirming the decisions of the Munsiff. In all these suits the plaintiffs claimed as under-raiyats of a certain holding in a village called Chorekhali. The lands in all the suits comprise the C.S. plots 3, 4 and 5. The plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession of the lands through their bargadars and that in the month of Sravan 1327 B.S., one of the plaintiffs, Ramesh Chandra Das Gupta, in one of the suits raised a hut on plots 3 and 4, which led to the institution of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 in which an order was made in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs thereupon were prevented from going upon the lands and the suits were, therefore, brought for recovery of khas possession against the defendants. Defendant 4 did not put in appearance. Defendants 1 to 3 pleaded that the lands in q...
Tag this Judgment!Currimbhoy and Co. Ltd. Vs. L.A. Creet and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal113
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by the plaintiff on 14th May 1924 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol against Messrs. Oosman Jamal & Sons Limited, for damages for breach of contract for the sale and purchase of certain lands with mining rights thereunder in mouza Khandra in the district of Burdwan, for recovery of khas possession of certain properties of which possession had been given to the said defendants pending completion of the contract and particulars whereof are given in the plaint, and for an account of certain quantities of coal which had been raised by the said defendants or, in the alternative, for specific performance of the said contract and for other reliefs as stated in the plaint.2. More than 2 years after the institution of the suit, namely, on 30th June 1926, an order for compulsory liquidation of Messrs. Oosman Jamal & Sons Limited was passed by this Court on its original side and a Mr. R. Ray, chartered ac...
Tag this Judgment!Osman Gani Mistry and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal130
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case 11 accused were put upon their trial before the learned Sessions Judge and a jury. Eight have been found guilty by a majority of three to two and they have been convicted by the learned Judge. The case arose out of an affray which appears to have occurred in connexion with a dispute as to who had the right of possession of certain agricultural land. The occurrence took place at three or four o'clock in the afternoon of 22nd July 1928. The learned Judge in his charge to the jury has described the occurrence which would appear to show that both the complainant party and the accused party were present. Many of them were armed and so far as the complainant's party was concerned, they were in possession of one gun and a member of the party of the accused was shot with it. The questions for the jury have been very lucidly and elaborately set forth in the charge. The learned Sessions Judge has explained most satisfactorily the importance of the question of possessi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »