Kolkata Court January 1929 Judgments
In Re: Ramackers and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal146,122Ind.Cas.214
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. In my opinion, the right construction of Section 104, Companies Act is that the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies should file the documents therein referred to when presented, in spite of the fact that they have not been presented for filing within the month specified, and that he should inform the officer of the company, who presents the document for filing, that, unless, within a time to be specified by the Registrar, the applicant obtains relief from the Court, he (the Registrar) will take steps to prosecute him for his default. The effect of accepting and filing the document is not to relieve the person in default from the liability imposed by the section, unless he obtains relief from the Court for the whole period during which he was in default, with an order extending the time for filing up to the time when he actually did file the documents.2. With regard to the facts of this particular case, I am satisfied from the affidavits that, up to June 1927, th...
Tag this Judgment!W. Stewart and ors. Vs. Hubert Hughes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal341,118Ind.Cas.892
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued upon several grounds one of which in my opinion is enough to dispose of this matter. That is:That the police report not having disclosed any apprehension of a breach of the peace at the time the proceedings were drawn up the said proceedings were without jurisdiction.2. It appears on a reference to the proceedings drawn up by the Magistrate that he relied upon a report of the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Murari Police Station dated 24th June 1928, for holding that a dispute likely to induce a breach of the peace existed between the parties. The police report upon which the learned Magistrate relies says:The work on the disputed lands by the first party has been stopped on account of monsoon since about a month ago and so no breach of the peace is apprehended at present but there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace for the disputed lands after the present monsoon.3. The question is whether this report upon which alone the learned Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Jamilennessa Khatun and ors. Vs. Ijjatennessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal586
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration that the decree passed in a suit brought in the year 1912 for partition which was numbered 137 of 1912 and renumbered as 7 of 1920 was a nullity so far as she was concerned. The matter, shortly stated, stands thus : The property of which the partition was sought originally belonged to one Golam Ali Choudhury who died in the year 1295 B.S. corresponding to 1888. He had three wives, Azajannessa Khatun, Ijjatan-nessa Khatun and Jamidannesa Khatun. It is not necessary to state the names of all the parties concerned in this litigation : these will be found in the geneological table given at pp. 152-153 in the paper book of appeal from original decree No. 254 of 1922. The appellant is a descendant of Golam Ali Chowdhury by his first wife. There was a dispute among the members of the family that the second wife Ijjatannessa was not validly married to him under the Mahomedan law, she having b...
Tag this Judgment!Sew Baran Saw and anr. Vs. Ram Charitra Dubey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal306
1. The plaintiff sued for a sum of money against defendant 1 and 2 or, in the alternative, against defendant 3. His allegation shortly stated, was that defendants 1 and 2 advanced, Rs. 4,000 to defendant 3 on a promissory note. Defendants 1 and 2 at the same time wore negotiating for a usufructuary lease to be granted by defendant 3 of certain properties in favour of the plaintiff. Sometime after the money was advanced, defendants 1 and 2 along with defendant 3 came to the plaintiff's house at Asansol and defendants 1 and 2 took a loan of Rs. 4,000 from him with an agreement to pay interest at the rate of Re. 1-4 annas per cent per month and defendant 3 stood surety for the payment of the money. When the plaintiff asked for repayment of the loan from defendants 1 and 2, they made over the promissory note which defendant 3 gave to them with an endorsement that the money should be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff attempted to realize the money from defendant 3 but the latter did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Chand Parruk Vs. Bhim Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal379,118Ind.Cas.851
1. We examined the records in these two rules and we are of opinion that those rules must be made absolute.2. As regards the rule which was obtained by Mr, Sushil Sen there is not much difficulty because all the parties interested in the compensation money that was awarded are before us and they are agreeable that the compensation money should be allowed to be withdrawn by the karta of the family.3. As regards the other rule, namely, the one obtained by Sir Benod-Mitter, in our view this case cannot be distinguished from case of Dindayal v. Ram Sahu [1928]32 C.W. 815. In the last mentioned case (the karta of the family was allowed to withdraw the compensation money. We see no reason why a similar order should not be made in this case.4. No order is made as to costs in either of these rules....
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Bidhan Das Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal283
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been pressed on one point. Some tins of ghee were found in a godown belonging to the petitioner and the article was ordered to be destroyed by the Municipal Magistrate under Section 421, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. It is not disputed that the ghee is adulterated and unfit for human consumption. It is also not disputed before us that it was in the possession of the petitioner and that if the contention of the petitioner before us fails it is liable to destruction under Section 420 or 421.2. The point that has been argued in this case on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence and that it has not been proved by the Corporation that the ghee seized was intended for human consumption. It is said that under Section 418 read with Sections 420 and 421 the article to be destroyed must be a thing intended for human consumption. The question therefore is whether the ghee was intended for human consumption. It is argued that under Section 418, Clau...
Tag this Judgment!Nibaran Chandra Bhattacharyya and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal754
ORDERMukerji, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 120.B, I.P.C. Petitioner 1 has also been convicted under Section 384, I.P.C. and No. 2 under Section 384/114, I.P.C. The ground upon which this rule has been issued is that the trial was vitiated as the sanction contemplated by Section 196-A, Criminal P.C. had not been accorded by the Local Government to the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 120-B, I.P.C. Now the object of the conspiracy having been to commit an offence under Section 384, I.P.C. which is a non-cognizable offence the Court could not take cognizance of the said offence without the sanction of the Local Government or of the District Magistrate empowered in that behalf. In the explanation which the learned Magistrate has submitted in answer to the rule he has suggested that the convictions under Sections 384 and 384/114, I.P.C. as against petitioners 1 and 2 respectively may be maintained and that the sentence passed on them may be treated as h...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Bishan Das Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.581
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule has been pressed on one point. Some tins of ghee were found in a godown belonging to the petitioner and the article was ordered to be destroyed by the Municipal Magistrate under Section 421; Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. It is not disputed that the ghee is adulterated and unfit for human consumption. It is also not disputed before us that it was in the possession of the petitioner and that if the contention of the petitioner before us failsit is liable to destruction under Section 420 or Section 421.2. The point that has been argued in this case on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence and that it has not been proved by the Corporation that the ghee seized was intended for human consumption. It is said that under Section 418 read with Sections 420 and 421 the article to be destroyed must be a thing intended for human consumption. The question, therefore, is whether the ghee was intended for human consumption. It is argued that under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!isab Vs. Guru Charan Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal431
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant has then preferred this second appeal. In support of the appeal two contentions have been urged. The first one is to the effect that the question as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant has not been properly determined by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. It is said that although he has found that there was a kabuliat under which the rent in the present suit was claimed it has not been found whether the kabuliat was actually acted upon or not. Now this argument as far as I can understand it, really means that it was the defendant's case that the kabuliat although executed was not intended to be acted upon; because the mere fact that the defendant has not paid any rent after the execution, of the kabuliat does not go to show that the kabuliat has not been acted upon or indeed would absolve the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Isab Vs. Guru Charan Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.223
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant has then preferred this second appeal.2. In support of the appeal two contentions have been urged. The first one is to the effect that the question as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant has not been properly determined by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. It is said that although he has found that there was a kabuliyat under which the rent in the present suit was claimed it has not been found whether the kabuliyat was actually acted upon or not. Now this argument, as far as I can understand it, really means that it was the defendant's case that the kabuliyat although executed was not intended to be acted upon; because the mere fact that the defendant has not paid any rent after the execution of the kabuliyat does not go to show that the kabuliyat has not been, acted upon or indeed would absolve t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »