Kolkata Court November 1929 Judgments
(Maharaj) Kishore Khanna Vs. the Netherlands Trading Society and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal555
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal fails except that it gives this Court an opportunity to amend a very badly drawn order of adjudication which I must regret to see under the seal of this Court. It appears that the debtor had been arrested at the suit of a particular creditor and he was brought before the Court under Section 55, Civil P.C., by way of execution for the enforcement of a money decree. On the day in question the facts are that he appeared by learned Counsel Mr. Moore. The other learned Counsel was Mr. Surita appearing for the decree-holder, one Annada Prasad Chatterjee, When the case was called on, it seems that the defendant being produced in the custody of the Sheriff's Officer, Mr. Moore, counsel, said that his client wished to apply for adjudication as an insolvent and asked for an order under Section 55, Sub-section (4), Civil P.C. The Court made an order that on his giving, security in Rs. 500 to the satisfaction of the Registrar for filing within one month hi...
Tag this Judgment!Prasaddas Sen and ors. Vs. K.S. Bonnerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal61
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are three in number Prasaddas Sen,. Santoshlal Sen and Hrishikesh Sen. They bring their suit against Kamalkrishna. Shelley Bonnerjee, Official Receiver of this Court, and their case is that in Suit No. 923 of 1919, by a consent decree,, dated 8th July 1920, the Official Receiver was appointed a receiver of certain immovable properties belonging to the defendants in that suit, including the promises known as No. 1, Shama Bai Lane, and; that pursuant to an order, dated 10th September 1920, the Official Receiver took: possession of the said premises under the consent decree. The defendants in the previous suit were a firm trading under the name or style of B. N. Sen & Brothers, in which firm the plaintiffs and1. Bholanath Sen, defendant 2 in the present suit, were partners.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the premises; No. 1, Shama Bai Lane, were let to one Ramnarayan Jalan on a monthly rent of Rs. 4-01 and they allege that the Official Receiverwi...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Nath Malia Vs. H.V. Low and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal174
Buckland, J.1. By a consent decree made on 25th August 1925 a sum of four lakhs of rupees with interest payable by instalments was ordered to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff company. The decree provided that the decretal amount should be secured by a first charge upon the Chalbulpore Colliery with all fittings and fixtures, and that in default of payment of any instalment the plaintiffs should be entitled to execute the decree and 'at their option to have the said colliery which is hereby charged sold in execution of the decree made in this suit.'2. On 5th January 1929 the plaintiff-company made an application to this Court for execution of the decree and for an order for sale by the Registrar, but on the application being heard the Court was asked to appoint a receiver with liberty to sell the property. The learned Judge so ordered and against his order an appeal, which was dismissed on 17th July 1929, was preferred. The defendant now applies for leave to appeal to His Majes...
Tag this Judgment!Hara Chandra Mistry and ors. Vs. Bhagabat Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal690,129Ind.Cas.574
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiffs sue to eject the defendants alleging that they are under-raiyats and have been served with notice to quit. The defence is that the defendants are not under-raiyats, but that they are occupancy raiyats and that the notices were not sufficient. On these two points the learned Munsif held against the defendants and decreed the suit. On appeal the Additional District Judge agreed with the trial Court on the two points; but he held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The plaintiffs now come in second appeal.2. It is pointed out that the question of res judicata, though raised at the trial, was not pressed before that Court. Nevertheless it is a point of law which can be properly urged in appeal; and the learned Additional District Judge was quite right in deciding it on merits. It is next pointed out that this question of res judicata has been decided upon the judgment in a previous suit in 1920 between the parties, but that neither the...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhal Chandra Dutta Vs. Purna Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal273
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued on two grounds (1) that the elements necessary to constitute an offence under Section 6(1), Bengal Food Adulteration Act 6 of 1919 have not been proved and (2) that as the mustard oil, the subject matter of the case was, sold to the Sanitary Inspector not as mustard oil but as mixed mill oil and as the signboards in the shop indicate that mixed mill oil for lighting purposes is only sold the conviction under Section 6(1) of the Act is not sustainable. Both the grounds may be considered together.2. The facts are that the Sanitary Inspector on the authority from the Chairman of the Municipality went to the shop of the accused and purchased a quantity of mustard oil which he says was for human consumption. After his purchase he divided the oil according to the Act into three parts one of which was kept with the shop-keeper. It was found on analysis that the oil sold was adulterated mustard oil and the owner of the shop was prosecuted and fined Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Pada Dey Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal285
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule has been issued against the conviction of the petitioner for not complying with the requirements of Section 278(1)(b), Calcutta Municipal Act 1923. The requisition with which we are concerned in this case was to the effect that the petitioner should provide access to the northern connected privy of the first floor through the nearest verandah. The question which I am called upon to determine in this case is first whether the requisition is one which the corporation was entitled to issue under the Act; and secondly, whether the corporation has the right to say that access to the privy provided by the petitioner is insufficient. Section 278(1)(b) authorizes the corporation to renew, repair, cover, recover, trap, ventilate, pave and pitch, cleanse, flush or take such other order with the same (including a privy) as the corporation may think fit to direct. It is argued on behalf of the corporation that the requisition is covered by the words 'take such other orde...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoney Auddy Vs. Dinendra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal428
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the appellant is one Nilmoney Auddy a person who purchased at a sale held by the Registrar of this Court under a final decree for sale dated 8th February 1928 for the enforcement of an equitable mortgage by deposit. The mortgagor was one Banku Behary Dhar and the mortgagee was Dinendra Nath Das and the deed deposited was a conveyance dated 22nd December 1893 : and the deed was deposited with a view to create an equitable charge on the one-third share claimed to belong to Banku Behary Dhar, the mortgagor. The sale was held on 15th March 1929 and that sale was held under certain conditions of sale of which the sixth is important for the present purpose. That condition required the party having the carriage of the proceedings to deliver to the purchaser an abstract of the title, subject to the stipulations contained in those conditions. It went on to provide as follows:The purchaser shall, within seven days after the actual delivery of the abstract, deliver at...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Jana and ors. Vs. Baidya Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal767
Graham, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs has arisen out of a suit for a declaration that an entry in the Record-of-Rights, to the effect that the tenants (defendants) are entitled in the event of hajah, or destruction of crops by flood, to a proportionate remission of rent is wrong, and for correction of the same.2. A preliminary objection was taken that the appeal is incompetent on the ground that two of respondents, 11 and 24, have died and that no substitutions have been made. There is no substance in the objection as the suit is a representative suit.3. The short point involve in the appeal, and this is the only point which has been argued before us, is one of limitation. The Courts below have held that the suit was barred by six years limitation under Article 120, Lim. Act.4. The question is whether limitation runs from the date of the final publication of the Record-of-Rights, or from the date of the final certificate. The Record-of-Rights was finally published on 20th January ...
Tag this Judgment!Nabendra Kishore Roy Vs. Choudhury Mian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal265,131Ind.Cas.584
Suhrawardy, J.1. These five appeals arise out of suits for enhancement of rent under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten, Act, 1885. In some cases there was also a claim for increase of. rent under Section 52, but it was given up. Of these five appeals it is admitted by the appellant that two namely S. A. Nos. 2337 and 2043 of 192 , must fail, because in the first case some of the respondents have died and no substitution has been made in their place, and in the second case there was no claim under Section 30 (b). So these appeals are dismissed with costs - one gold mohur in each case.2. In the remaining three appeals the question raised is that the view taken by the lower Courts which dismissed the plaintiff's suits is incorrect in law. The question for determination depends upon the true construction of the kabuliyat dated the 4th Chaitra 1288 B. S., under which the defendants claim a permanent mokarrari right. The kabuliyat begins with a table with five columns. Column 1 gives a description of...
Tag this Judgment!Probodh Chandra Mitra Vs. Road Oils (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal782
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree pronounced by my learned brother Page, J., and dated 26th March 1929. By that decree the learned Judge declared that an agreement dated 18th April 1928 purporting to create a charge on the outstanding bills due to the defendant company for the amount due to the plaintiff was not binding on the defendant company. He further ordered that the defendant company do pay to the plaintiff an agreed sum of Rs. 42,000 with interest at 6 per cent until realization and he reserved consideration of certain other matters which were dealt with by a subsequent order and are the subject of another appeal (No. 52 of 1929).2 The suit was one brought by the plaintiff against a limited company called the Road Oils (India)Limited. It was originally instituted on 19th December 1928 and, by his plaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant company being a, company which manufactured and sold certain road oils appointed him in April 1928 treasurer or banian or ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »