Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Sorted by: old Court: kolkata Year: 1920 Page 1 of about 2 results (1.233 seconds)

Jul 13 1920 (PC)

Satis Chandra Ckakrabarti Vs. Ram Dayal De

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-13-1920

Reported in : AIR1921Cal1,59Ind.Cas.143

Ashutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. On the 11th July 1919 Satis Chandra Chakrabarti, the petitioner in the present Rule, made an application to this Court and prayed that disciplinary action might be taken against Mr. Ramdayal De. a Vakil of this Court, who had acted on behalf of one Chandra Kumar Chakrabarti with whom he had been involved in a protracted litigation, It is not necessary for our present purpose to narrate the history or review the progress of that litigation; it is sufficient to state that the application made by the petitioner contained grave charges of misconduct against Mr. De. The application was supported by an affidavit which recited that the facts mentioned in the petition were true to the knowledge of the deponent except those contained in paragraphs 10, 25 and 27, and that a part of paragraphs 4, 47 and 50 were true to his information and belief. The application was heard in the first instance by Fletcher and Duval, JJ. On the 17th July 1919 the matter was referr...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1920 (PC)

Nilmani Kar and ors. Vs. Raja Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-27-1920

Reported in : AIR1921Cal397,61Ind.Cas.82

Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This Reference has been made in connection with an appeal by the tenants, defendants, in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent. One of the questions in controversy was, whether the defendants paid a consolidated rent for the tenancy, or whether they were liable to pay additional rent for increment of area as disclosed by recent survey over the area shown in the rent-roll of the landlords. The Revenue Officer and the Special Judge answered this question in favour of the landlords. On second appeal to this Court, the decision of the Special Judge was assailed on the ground that his conclusion was based upon an erroneous construction of Sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, That sub-section is in the following terms:When in a suit under this section, the landlord or tenant proves that, at the time the measurement on which the claim is based, was made, there existed, in respect ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //