Kolkata Court April 1929 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.
Panchanan Banerjee and anr. Vs. Surendra Nath Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal180
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff Panchanan Banerjee brought his suit making as co-plaintiff the deity or Thakur Sri Sri Issur Sitaram Chandra Jiu. The object of the suit is to have a declaration that the plaintiff Panchanan Banerjee is the sole shebait of the deity in question and the main purpose of the plaintiff in seeking this declaration is explained by the fact that certain property dedicated to this deity has been acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust and that an award of Rs. 84,000 has been made as compensation therefor. This money is now lying in a certain Court and the plaintiff has brought this suit to establish that he is the person who is in charge of or managing the properties of the deity and that he is entitled and solely entitled to collect this money. So far as the property is concerned it appears from an affidavit of assets which was filed (in the Goods of Soshi Bhusan) in 1922 that the items 1, 2 and 3 and 3/1, Balaram De Street were assessed to rates b...
Sailendra Krishna Roy and ors. Vs. Rashmohan Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal703
Rankin, C.J.1. This case arises out of an order made by my learned brother Pearson, J., refusing to interfere with an order made by the Registrar in Insolvency refusing to review an order made by him for the attendance of certain persons to be examined under Section 36, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 3 of 1909. The merits of the case and the necessity for holding the enquiry proposed seem plain enough ; but the point which is relied upon on , behalf of the appellant is a technical point. Section 36 begins in this way:The Court may, on the application of the Official Assignee or of any creditor who has proved his debt, at any time after an order of adjudication has been made, summon before it in such manner as may be prescribed the insolvent or any person known or suspected to have in his possession any property belonging to the insolvent, or supposed to be indebted to the insolvent or any person whom the Court may deem capable of giving information respecting the insolvent, his deali...
Narendra Krishna Chakraburty Vs. Ashutosh Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal358
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts. The trial Court made a preliminary decree by which a commissioner was appointed to take accounts and to determine what sum. was due to the plaintiff or to the defendant according to the result of the accounts taken. The commissioner submitted a report in which he found that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover-any amount from the defendant but on the other hand the defendant was entitled to get from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 958-4-0. The Munsif thereupon passed a decree in favour of the defendant for that sum. An appeal was taken to the. Subordinate Judge who dismissed it. It is argued before us that the commissioner for accounts was wrong in going behind the preliminary decree and in looking to other items than what that decree specified. The preliminary decree ordered the commissioner to take accounts and to determine what sum was due to defendant 1 for pay, parbani, tahari and nazar for the period of services. The co...
Lloyds Bank, Ltd. Vs. P.E. Guzdar and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal22,121Ind.Cas.625
Page, J.1. This is a case of conflicting equities. The defendant firm P.E. Guzdar & Co. mortgaged 42, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, to the National Bank of India by delivery of the title deeds to secure an overdraft in their current account with the bank, and afterwards, having regained possession of the title deeds, mortgaged the property in like manner to Lloyds Bank to secure a loan of Rs. 5,00,000. The question is, which of the two mortgages in the circumstances is entitled to priority? Now, the defendant firm consisted of two partners E.P. Guzdar and M.C. Guzdar, and, by a power-of-attorney executed on 23rd November 1922, the partners invested their respective sons, J.B. Guzdar and K. M. Guzdar, with a general power to manage and carry on the business of the firm.2. It appears from the evidence and I find that at all material times the business of the firm - at any rate in connexion with the plaintiff and defendant banks - was carried on by J.B. Guzdar; that J.E. Guzdar was the only...
Govinda Kumar Sur and ors. Vs. Mohini Mohan Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal42
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an action in ejectment by the plaintiff-appellants after service of notice to quit on the tenant-defendants. The case is that defendants 1 to 3 were holding under the plaintiff's as monthly tenants-at-will a building in the town of Dacca, described in the plaint. Defendant 4 was a sub-tenant under the tenant-defendants. The plaintiffs served a notice to quit upon them but the tenant-defendants refused to vacate and hence the present suit. The suit was valued at Rs. 456 being the twelve months' rent payable by the tenant defendants at the rate of Rs. 38 a month. It was tried by the Munsif and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 3 appealed and an application was made before the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal to formulate an issue and to try it as a preliminary issue regarding the valuation of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Munsif in the trial Court. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to this plea in bar and held that the suit...
Narendra Nath Mitra Vs. Paban Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal776
Mukerji, J.1. The Suit put of which this revision case has arisen was instituted, by the plaintiff for recovery of the principal and interest due on a registered bond, the amounts of principal and interest claimed being respectively Rs. 80 and Rs. 301-7-6 pies. The rate of interest claimed was what was stipulated in the bond, namely compound interest at 25 per cent per annum with yearly rests. The defendant did not appear to contest the claim. The Judge of the Court below decreed the suit ex parte for the principal amount of Rs. 80 and simple interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum from the date of the bond, namely 1st May 1921, together with costs. The plaintiff has moved this Court and obtained this rule.2. The learned Judge has refused enforcement of the stipulation as to compound interest contained in the bond for the following reason : 'The transaction,' says he:is between landlord and his tenant and consisting of arrears of rant and salami claimed. I consider that the trans...
Badarannessa Chaudhurani Vs. Ram Chandra Mala Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal717
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly these. The plaintiffs in the suit brought a suit in which they claimed that a certain jote was held under them by the defendants and not by them under the pro forma defendants. In the trial Court the suit was valued at Rs. 200 and this valuation was accepted both by the trial Court and the parties. The appeal to the lower appellate Court was valued at the same amount. The office made a note on the memorandum of appeal as follows:This is a suit for establishment of the plaintiffs' taluka right over the disputed land and for declaration of getting rent from the 2nd party defendant. Ad valorem fee has been paid on valuation of Rs. 200 in both the Courts.2. The learned District Judge then made a note asking the lower Court to explain how the valuation was arrived at and under what section the court-fees were assessed. The learned Judge says that Section 7(c) would seem to apply and he asked both parties to p...
MoyzuddIn Mean Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.70
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. The petitioner was not examined under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. The Courts below appear to have taken the view that that section is not applicable to a summary trial. In this view they are wrong, it having been held by this Court that Section 342 is obligatory and applies to summary trials also see Bebhu Lal v. Emperer : AIR1927Cal250 . The result is that the Rule should be made absolute, the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner will be set aside and the case will now be re-tried by some Magistrate other than the Magistrate who dealt with it. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
In Re: Nripendra Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal171,121Ind.Cas.745
Lort-Williams, J.1. This insolvent was adjudicated on 25th January 1929.2. Prior to his insolvency, he carried on business in Calcutta under the name and style of Gobinda Chunder Bose & Company.3. In the course of such business, he used to obtain goods through the petitioners Messrs. Bettmann & Kupfer, who also carry on business in Calcutta.4. The method by which such goods were obtained was as follows:Bose sent an indent to the petitioners, addressed to them, and on a form supplied by them - requesting them to order on his account certain goods therein mentioned, packed as directed at the price stated, C.I.F.C.I. Calcutta - 60 days D/A in sterling and otherwise on terms and conditions stated on the re-verse of the form. These terms inter alia provided, that all risks of voyage, &c.;, were to be borne by Bose. That he would accept their invoice as correct and accept on presentation and pay at maturity the draft (or on demand the pronote) drawn for the invoice value - That in the event ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›