Kolkata Court July 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.
Surendra Kumar Vs. Abhay Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal78
B.B. Ghose, J.1. One of sixteen decree-holders is the appellant in this case. All the decree-holders obtained a decree for costs against the judgment-debtors. The appellant applied for execution of the entire decree making the other decree-holders parties to his application under Order 21, Rule 15, Civil P.C. The judgment-debtors appeared and they alleged that they had paid a certain sum of money to the other decree-holders as their shares of the decretal amount. The other decree-holders admitted that they had received that sum, which is said to be Rs. 575. The appellant contended that the other 15 decree-holders were not entitled to so much of the decretal amount in their shares and. he asked the Court to decide what his share of the decretal amount was and to execute the decree as against the judgment-debtors for that amount. The judgment-debtors deposited the balance of the decretal amount and they alleged that they had paid Rs. 575 bona fide to the other decree-holders and were dep...
Gorai Mollah and ors. Vs. Panchu Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal111
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that, in 1897, plaintiff 1 purchased an occupancy raiyati interest under a certain howla. In 1898, he took a kabuliyat from the defendant's predecessors. That kabuliyat was to be in operation for nine years; but the tenants have held over upon the terms thereof. The plaintiffs sue in ejectment and the defence with which they are met is that these defendants are not under-raiyats but are raiyats. It is for the defendants to make that case good, particularly if they have to begin by admitting that their tenancy in origin was an under-raiyati. They claim to make that defence good in this way : They say that a six anna share in the howla superior to the occupancy raiyati interest which plaintiff 1 purchased in 1897 was bought by a brother of plaintiff 1, and they further say that this transaction and also the acquisition of the occupancy right were transactions by plaintiff 1 and his brother jointly. From this, they go on to maintain, first, that the...
(Raja) Promothanath Malia Vs. H.V. Low and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal502
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Lord-Williams, J., appointing a receiver by way of execution of a colliery called the Challeulpur colliery belonging to the defendant. The plaintiffs on 25th August 1925 obtained a consent decree against the defendant for the sum of four lakhs with certain interest payable by certain instalments. The suit was only a money suit, but the consent decree provided that the decretal amount should be secured by a first charge upon the Challeulpore Colliery with all fittings and fixtures and that in default of payment of any instalment, the plaintiffs should be entitled to execute the decree andat their option to have the said colliery which is hereby charged sold in execution of the decree made in this suit.2. The plaintiffs on 5th January 1929 applied for execution of the decree and asked by their tabular statement for an order directing a sale by the Registrar of this Court of the said colliery. This application was clearly misconceived...
Raimoni Dasi and ors. Vs. Upendra Nandan Das Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal251a
1. In these cases, it appears that under Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act, no second appeal lay to this Court. We regret that this point was not noticed at the earlier stage of the second appeals; but there seems to be no doubt about it. We have satisfied ourselves that an appeal did lie to the lower appellate Court. But it appears that in all these cases the claim for arrears of rent was under Rs. 100 and the question is merely whether or not by reason of the flood in 1329 the tenants were exempted from paying rent for that particular year in pursuance of a custom to obtain remission of rent by reason of destruction of crops through inundation. That question does not appear to us to come within any branch of the proviso to Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act and, in that view, these second appeals were incompetent.2. We think, therefore, that the second appeals must be dismissed as well as these Letters Patent appeals : we do not think that any order for costs should be made as regards the second ap...
Nagendra Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal742
Williams, J.1. The appellant was tried at Khulna by Mr. Simpson, the Additional Sessions Judge and a jury of seven convicted by their unanimous verdict of murdering Sita Nath Das on 15th June 1928, and on their plea for mercy sentenced to tranportation for life.2. There is no doubt that Sita Nath Das was murdered ; the question is whether the appellant murdered him.3. Sita Nath and one Manindra Nath were neighbouring shop-keepers at Kapilmuni. The appellant was Manindra's servant.4. On the night of 15th June at about 9 p.m., Sitanath went to the shop of Kalibor Pramanik and there drank intoxicating liquor in the company of Manindra, Bansiram Pramanik, Mono Karmokar and Bhagoban Nath.5. Sita Nath was going to Calcutta the next morning and had left his son-in-law Mono Mohan Das and his nephew Surendra Nath Das aged about 14 in his shop counting money which he needed to take with him.6. He was not anxious to stay drinking, but Bansiram over-persuaded him and they all went on to the house ...
Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal159
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, the appeal must be allowed.2. The application is one by the Karnani Industrial Bank Limited who appear to be unsecured creditors of the respondent for a debt which was represented at one time by four decrees but which was adjusted on 5th July 1926 at the sum of Rs. 74,293 due on 31st May of that year. The arrangement between the parties was in writing and it is clear that, in default, the Bank was to be entitled to realise by way of execution the moneys that would be outstanding. The present question arose upon an application on behalf of the Bank for an order that a receiver should be appointed in execution of these decrees of the rents and profits of certain properties, all of which were within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. The form of the application is what is known in England as equitable execution. It is a form of execution recognized by the Civil Procedure Code under Section 51 thereof. The contention on behalf of the respo...
Satish Chandra Bhaduri and ors. Vs. Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal348
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order refusing an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge found that no notice was served under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., but he held that under the proviso to that rule no notice was necessary. This is the point in this appeal.2. It appears that a previous execution case was started on 1st March 1924, and three orders were passed on 16th June and 17th June, 1924 The first two orders numbered 5 and 6 in the order-sheet related to the sale and Order 3 directed that set off be allowed as prayed for. It maybe argued that these orders, or at least the last order, can be construed as orders against the judgment-debtors on the previous application for execution. But it is pointed out that according to the judgment in the previous execution ease dated 17th December 1924, the Court has found that the notice under Rule 60 of the Code was not served and that the sale proclamation was ...
(Mt.) Radharani Dassaya Vs. Purna Chandra Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal721
Page, J.1. In my opinion this is a clear case. The only question is whether this suit is one which must fail because there was failure to give notice as provided in Section 80, Civil P.C. The suit was brought against a receiver appointed by the Court, and on referring to the prayers set out in para. 17 of the plaint it is clear that the suit is one for accounts. It is not a suit for damages for conversion. Under those circumstances, in my opinion, the case is governed by the, rulings in Beni Madhab Sukul v. Upendra Chandra Singha (1920) 53 I.C. 747, Dakshina Ranjan Ghose v. Omar Chand Oswal : AIR1924Cal145 and Koti Reddi v. P. Subbiah (1918) 41 Mad. 792. The learned advocate for the appellants urged that in any event they might be given an opportunity to amend their plaint so that they might convert the suit into one for damages for conversion. In my opinion it would not be right or reasonable at this stage to allow such an amendment of the proceedings, la my opinion the decree appeale...
(Mahant) Murlidas Vs. Baijnath Das-ramnath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal623,129Ind.Cas.189
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that the present appellant obtained judgment against his judgment-debtors in 1925 for a certain sum of money. Thereupon, he proceeded to take garnishee proceedings in respect of a sum belonging to the judgment-debtors with the Allahabad bank. In August 1928, the bank was ordered to pay that sum of money into Court, and on 20th August, the bank deposited that money with the Sheriff, Thereupon, certain proceedings were started by the judgment-debtors to restrain the plaintiff from executing his decree. The judgment-debtors set up that it was a fraudulent decree and, for some reason which I do not appreciate, obtained an order stopping the execution proceedings for a period of two months, the money being ordered to remain in the hands of the Sheriff. Within the two months, the judgment-debtors were ordered to institute proceedings to have the fraudulent decree set aside. As a matter of fact, they never instituted any such proceedings. Then, on 24th ...
Jyoti Prasad Lala Vs. Pearilal Lala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal384
Graham, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Hooghly dated 16th February 1929 directing a receiver to let a god own at a suitable monthly rent and also to sell some iron safes, and some gold and silver ornaments, and bullion and to apply the sale proceeds towards the payment of debts due from the minor's estate. It appears that a receiver was appointed by the Court in this case and there is controversy between the parties as to whether the properties of the minor should be sold or not, or whether the petitioner should be allowed to continue the karbar. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that, inasmuch as no guardian has yet been appointed, the learned District Judge had 'no jurisdiction to order the sale of the minor's properties by the receiver. In support of that contention, reference has been made to Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act, and it was urged that it would be straining the language of that section and that it would go contrary t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »