Kolkata Court February 1930 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.
Official Trustee of Bengal Vs. Purna Chandra Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal202
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in a rent execution case against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum passed under the following circumstances : The appellant obtained a decree for rent in Rent Suit No. 2 of 1924 in respect of a sepatni tenure of which he was the landlord. The tenure was sold and a sum of Rs. 7,005 realized. Deducting the plaintiff's claim under the decree, a sum of Rs. 5,267 odd was left outstanding as surplus sale-proceeds in favour of the defendant. The tenure was sold on 15th August 1927 and the sale was confirmed on 17th September 1927. Before the sale of the tenure the plaintiff had instituted another rent suit being Suit No. 12 of 1927 for rent due from May 1925 to May 1927 for Rs. 3,900. The Suit No. 12 of 1927 was decreed after the confirmation of the sale on 17th September 1927 and the appellant attached the sale-proceeds deposited in Court in execution of that decree. In the meantime . the respondent who held a previous mortga...
Bagdigi Kujama Collieries Ltd. Vs. Jagmohan Das Nagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal391
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a compulsory winding up order made by my learned brother, Buckland, J., on 26th August 1929, against a company called the Bagdigi Kujama Collieries Limited. The winding up order was-made upon a creditor's petition. The appeal before us is on the part of the company and the ground upon which the appeal is brought is that a certain gentleman-a share-holder named M. K. Khanna was desirous of being heard at the time the winding up order was made, and the learned Judge refused to hear him on the ground that, although he was. a share-holder and a large share-holder, he was a fully paid up share-holder and therefore not a contributory.2. There can be no doubt really, whether or not the wording of the Companies Act uses the word 'contributory' in all cases with exactness, that a fully paid up share-holder has the right to appear and to be heard upon the application to wind up the company. That has been the settled practice for a great many years and we hav...
Kuda Koch Vs. Madan Gopal Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.739
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit commenced by him for declaration of his title to the land is suit and for recovery of possession of the same. In the alternative the plaintiff claims that if the defendant's purchase of the disputed land be held good a declaration may be given in respect of his right to the 12-annas share of the said land and he seeks for recovery of joint possession with the defendants to the extent of such share. It appears that one Golok Koch died leaving behind him two sons Srikanta and Badan. Srikaata died leaving behind him Kuda who is the plaintiff in the present litigation. Badan died leaving behind Nidhoo and Mangloo his two sonsas his heirs. Nidhoo transferred his interest in the land to the defendants in the year 1905. The main defence of the defendants is that the title of the plaintiff to the disputed land or to the 12 annas share of the same has been extinguished by adverse possession by them for more than the s...
(Rai) Satish Chandra Chaudhuri Vs. (Maharaja) Sasi Kanta Acharjya Chau ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal525
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits. The plaintiff brought the original title suit in 1913, obtained a final decree in 1920, and delivery of possession in execution thereof in 1921. The suit for mesne profits was brought in 1922 in respect of the years 1326 and 1327 when the appeal was pending in the High Court. The defence of the landlord-defendants is that mesne profits should be calculated on rent basis and not on profit basis. The defence of the tenant-defendants is that they were bona fide inducted into the land and that the profits claimed were too high. The plaintiff put his claim at Rs. 3,994. The trial Court made a calculation of mesne profits on the produce basis and fixed the amount at Rs. 616-8-0 which was to be realized from defendants 8 to 12, being the tenants and some of the landlords. Both sides appealed. The landlord-defendants 8, 11, and 12 contended that they were not liable to mesne profits on produce basis. The tenant-defendants con...
Jasodha Kumar Dey Vs. Kali Kumar Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal619
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal the only question canvassed is whether the plaintiff mortgagee is entitled to sue for the entire mortgage-debt. The facts are that the defendant-appellant mortgaged five properties with the plaintiff in Falgun 1327. In Chaitra following the defendant sold one of the mortgaged properties to the plaintiff for Rs. 200 and the plaintiff on the same day conveyed a piece of land belonging to him to the defendant for the sum of Rs. 200. The present suit is brought by the plaintiff for recovery of the entire mortgage debt from the remaining properties. The defendants contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue for the entire mortgage-debt but is bound to allow proportionate reduction by the amount of the debt chargeable on the land which he has purchased from the defendant. Both the Courts below have overruled this objection.2. Now the principle of law which should govern a case like the present is firmly established by innumerable authorities. It is not n...
Nishi Kanta Ghose and anr. Vs. Borda Kanta Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal744,129Ind.Cas.367
Panckridge, J.1. This is a Rule granted by the Chief Justice calling upon the opposite party to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside or otherwise varied. The order in question concerns certain receivers who were appointed receivers of a joint business during the pendency of Suit No. 47 of 1924 in the Court of the 4th Subordinate Judge at Dacca. By various, orders culminating in an order of 22nd December 1928 the applicants before me were ordered to pay a certain remuneration to an auditor who had bean appointed - the remuneration amounting to Rs. 343-4-9. The receivers then preferred an appeal against this order to the District Judge who dismissed it on the ground that it was not maintainable. Thereupon they applied for the Rule with which I am now dealing, which was granted to them on 28th August last year. The application to this Court was presented out o time but the petitioners say that they had good excuse inasmuch as they were bona fide pursuing their remedy in ...
Mahim Chandra Guha Deb Barman Vs. Naba Chandra Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal58
1. This appeal has been preferred by a judgment-debtor from an order refusing to set aside a final decree in a mortgage suit for sale, which was passed ex parte and without notice to him. A preliminary decree was passed giving the judgment-debtor six months' period of grace expiring on 13th November 1924. He preferred an appeal to the High Court from that decree. The High Court on 30th March 1926 sot aside the decree of the trial Court and sent the case back to the trial Court with the direction that the plaintiff was to be examined in Court and on his evidence as also on the other evidence the Court would come to a decision on the question as to whether there was an agreement between him and the judgment-debtor as regards a set-off, and if such agreement was proved, the Court would allow a deduction from the amount decreed but if no such agreement was proved then the decree as passed would stand. On remand the trial Court on 10th August 1927, passed an order that the agreement was not...
U.K. Janardhan Rao Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal193
Rankin, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 57, Stamp Act of 1899, made by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, pursuant to an order made by my learned brother Panckridge, J. The question is as to the amount of duty to be charged upon a conveyance, dated 13th December 1928 whereby the applicant U.K. Janardhan Rao bought from Rama Raju Hanumantha Rao certain immovable property known as 16, Ramesh Mitter Road, in Calcutta. The case stated does not set out the facts at all clearly but the following facts are not in dispute:2. On 23rd May 1923 a certain man called Biswas and his wife executed a mortgage over this property to a lady of the name of Hemlata for Rs. 15,000 with certain interest. The property at that time may have belonged to Biswas or to his wife, or to both, or to neither; the mortgage may or may not have been a mortgage according to the true construction whereof the mortgagors, or either of them, became personally liable to repay the loan. In 1925, Rama Raju, in execution of ...
indubhushan Das Vs. Haricharan Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal385
Panckridge, J.1. This is a rule granted by my learned brother Mukerji, J., calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Boalia, dated 3rd July 1929, allowing the application of the petitioners before him to get possession of the properties in question from the decree-holder and the alleged purchasers should not be set aside, and the application before the learned Munsif dismissed, or such other or further order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioners before me are firstly the plaintiff auction-purchaser in a mortgage suit; and secondly three persons, who are alleged to be subpurchasers of the properties brought to sale and purchased by the judgment creditor, the first petitioner. The opposite parties, with whom I am chiefly concerned, are certain cosharers of the defendants in the mortgage suit. After the properties had been purchased by the judgment-creditor he succeeded in obtaining possession of them, and within 30 days therea...
Satishchandra De Vs. Madanmohan Jati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal483
Page, J.1. In my opinion this appeal is concluded against the appellants by the findings of fact. The suit is to recover possession of certain lands from the appellants, who are mere trespassers. It has been found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors, for a very long time, had been in possession of the lands in suit, with the assent of the whole body of maliks, before they were dispossessed by the appellants in 1923. It follows thattheir possession was lawfully attained, in this sense, that it was not procured by force or fraud, but peaceably, no one interested opposing:see per Lord Watson in Sundar v. Parbati [1889] 12 All. 51, and there was an issue raised and evidence upon which this finding could reasonably have been based.2. In these circumstances, it matters not, for the purposes of this suit, whether the plaintiffs' possession can be ascribed to a tenancy or to a transfer of the maliki interest, for the defendant-appellants, who were trespassers, were not entitled to dispo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »