Kolkata Court January 1930 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.
Sm. Radharani Dassya and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal737
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate that the case is a fit one to be taken on appeal to His Majesty in Council. The defendant is sued for negligence and for improper intromission with property in the course of his duties as receiver in a certain suit. The position is that an order has been passed for the discharge of the receiver in that suit. He has filed certain accounts; but these accounts have not yet been passed. The present plaintiffs applied in that suit for relief of the kind which they now seek. It was held against them that such relief could be more properly got by instituting a separate suit. We are in no way concerned with the correctness of that decision. A separate suit was brought, but no notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., was given to the defendant. For this reason, the suit has been dismissed in all the Courts. It is now contended before us that a certificate should be given that the case may be taken to His Majesty in Council on the ground that, ...
A. Milton and Co. Vs. Ojha Automobile Engineering Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal279
Lort-Williams, J.1. The facts of this case are peculiar. The plaintiffs and defendants entered into an agency agreement for the sale of motor cars in Agra and elsewhere.2. By Clause 18 thereof it was agreed thatany litigation arising out of this agreement shall be settled in the High Court of Judicature, Calcutta, or in the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, and in no other Court whatsoever.3. Disputes having arisen the defendants brought a suit in Agra. Subsequently the plaintiffs brought a suit in Calcutta claiming inter alia an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the Agra suit.4. Then they applied to the Agra Court for a stay upon the contention that the Agra Court had no jurisdiction owing to the above clause. This application was refused, but a temporary stay was granted pending an application to the High Court at Calcutta.5. The plaintiffs now ask for an order restraining the defendants from proceeding with the suit at Agra until the final determination of this s...
Jugal Chandra Anuni Vs. Ramesh Chandra Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal490
Rankin, C.J.1. I think this Eule must be made absolute. The petitioner before us is a tenant against whom his landlord brought a rent suit for a sum under Rs. 50 before a Munsif who was specially empowered under Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act. Having recovered his decree, the plaintiff landlord proceeded in execution to put the tenancy to sale and purchased it himself at a sale in execution on 12th April 1926. On the 16th March 1928, some two years later, the tenant, petitioner before us, applied before the specially empowered Munsif under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., to have the sale set aside. He made no case in his application that the sale was null and void apart from the, Circumstances which were properly within the scope of Rule 90 no case to the effect that the parties had not been brought before the Court or that the proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction. His case was that there had been suppression of processes and that the sale was held at a gross under value. The matt...
Emperor Vs. Ermanali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal212
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case there were nine accused persons. One of them was charged with murder under Section 302 and the remaining eight with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. They were tried by the Sessions Judge of Bakarganj with a jury of nine persons chosen by lot from among 14 persons who had been summoned to serve as jurors under the provisions of Section 326, Criminal P.C. The learned Judge, disagreeing with the verdict of the jury, referred the case to the High Court under Section 307, Criminal P.C.2. At the hearing of the reference it was objected by the learned advocate for the accused that the jury had not been constituted in accordance with law and that accordingly the proceedings before the trial Judge should be set aside altogether. The objection taken is not that the number of persons who served on the jury, namely nine, was not the correct number under Section 274, but that under Section 326 the number of persons to be summoned was not less th...
Emperor Vs. Erman Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.664
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case there were 9 accused persons. One of them was charged with murder under Section 302 and the remaining 8 with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried by the Sessions Judge of Bakarganj with a Jury of nine persons chosen by lot from among 14 persons who had been summoned to serve as jurors under the provisions of Section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge, disagreeing with the verdict of the Jury, referred the case to the High Court under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. At the hearing of the reference it was objected by the learned Advocate for the accused that the Jury had not been constituted in accordance with law and that accordingly the proceedings before the trial Judge should be set aside altogether. The objection taken is not that the number of persons who served on the Jury, namely 9 was not the correct number under Section 274 but that under Section 326...
K.B. Dutt Vs. ShamsuddIn Shah Shaheb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal488
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this rule should be made absolute. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit against a very great number of defendants in October 1923 asking, in substance, for a declaration of title to a certain property and for certain reliefs as regards possession and rents. Certain of the defendants filed written statements but none of the opposite parties to this rule except defendant 17 tiled a written statement. A local investigation was ordered in 1924 and it appears that in 1925 various local enquiries were directed and were prosecuted. The commissioner made more than one report and, in May 1926, certain of the defendants filed objections to the report. The case was being tried before a Subordinate Judge of Dacca and, in that town there is apparently more than one Subordinate Judge. In November 1926, it appears that the case had been transferred from-one Judge to the other more than once and the position was, when we coma to March 1927, that the case was on the ...
Krishnadhan Laha and anr. Vs. Brojendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal748
S.K. Ghose, J.1. Plaintiffs sue for recovery of possession of the disputed land on a declaration of their title thereto. It appears that there were two brothers, Trailokya Laha and Gobinda Laha. Trailokya the elder died in 1312 B.S. leaving a son Ashu defendant 8. Gobinda died in 1314 B.S. leaving two sons Krishna, plaintiff 1 and Netai, plaintiff 2. It appears that in 1301 Gobinda acquired mourashi right to the land in suit by a document Ex. 2. On 23rd Jaistha 1318, corresponding to 6th June 1911, defendant 8, purporting to act as guardian of the minors plaintiffs 1 and 2 and alleging that they had four annas share each and he had the remaining eight annas share in the land in suit, granted a permanent lease to one Tarini by the document which is marked Ex. C. Tarini'a heirs, defendants 6 and 7, conveyed the lease-hold to defendants 1 to 5. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed land was acquired by Gobinda Laha alone after he had separated from his brother Tarini in 1290 B.S. that def...
Manmatha Nath Biswas and ors. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Dobey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal351
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit relating to certain lands which were recorded in the finally published Record of Eights as forming an under-raiyati tenancy of the defendants under the plaintiff with a right of occupancy and a rent of Rs. 14-5-6. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the rent is. Rs. 62 per annum and that the defendants have no right of occupancy. The defence is that the record is correct and that in any case the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief, as he has dispossessed the defendants out of 183/4ths cottas of land by letting them out to one Kashi Nath Biswas. The trial Court found that there-was dispossession as alleged by the defence and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled in equity to any relief in the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge thought that whether there was dispossession or not the plain-tiff was entitled to sue for the declaration as prayed for by him. He held that the Plaintiff was debarred...
In Re: Sojoni Kanta Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal244
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application by Sojini Kanfca Das under Section 99-B, Criminal P.C., in respect of a book entitled 'India in Bondage : Her right to Freedom' of which he is the printer and publisher. On 13th August 1929, the Government of Bengal declared every copy of this book to be forfeited to His Majesty under Section 99-A of the Code. The present application is to set aside that order on the ground that the book did not contain any seditious matter or any matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 121-A, I.P.C. Our duty is to come to a finding under Section 99-D, Criminal P.C., namely, if we are not satisfied that the book contains seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section 1, Section 99-A, our duty is to set aside the order of forfeiture.2. The book would appear to have been first published in December 1928 and again in May 1929. The name of the author is given as Jabez T. Sunderland. From certain passages in the book it w...
Surendra Nath Jana Vs. Kumeda Charan Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal352; MANU/WB/0041/1930
1. The present rule is on behalf of one Surendra Nath Jana and is directed against an order of the District Judge dated 2nd August 1929, directing that a complaint should be drawn up against the petitioner under Sections 465 and 471, I.P.C. This order of the District Judge was made upon an appeal from the order of the Munsiff who had already refused to make such an order. The main ground placed before us is that the order is bad in law, inasmuch as there is no finding by the Court of appeal below that it is expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint should be made. We have examined the record and it is conceded that on the face of the appellate Court's judgment no such finding is recorded. But it is said that there is a finding that a clear prima facie case has been made and that coupled with the fact that a complaint has been ordered is sufficient to enable the Court to infer that the opinion of the lower appellate Court was that it was expedient in the interests of justic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »