Kolkata Court March 1930 Judgments
Suresh Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Mohendra Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal91,129Ind.Cas.859
Graham, J. 1. This is a reference from the Munsif, 2nd Court, Brahmanberia under Rules 1 and 6, Order 46, Civil P.C., inviting our decision upon a point of law which is raised in the letter of reference. The question involved is whether the Munsif sitting as a Small Cause Court Judge has jurisdiction to try the suit or whether he has not got such jurisdiction and the suit should be tried by a Munsif under the ordinary procedure.2. The facts shortly are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the price of some crops from the defendants on the allegation that the defendants were labourers who had agreed to pay to them and their cosharers a certain share of the crops while they were to retain the remainder of the crops in lieu of wages. The money sought to be recovered was in respect of the years 1333 to 1335 B. S. (1926 to 1928.)3. The defence set up by the defendants was that they were settled raiyats in the village and were raiyats in respect of this land also and that the...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Ganti Vs. F.L. Harcourt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal436
Buckland, J.1. This is an application under Section 476, Criminal P.C., the circumstances of which are as follows:2. In July 1928, a shareholder of the name of Ganti in the International Trading Co. Ltd., a private company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, instituted a suit, being suit No. 1623 of 1928, in this Court, against the company and the present petitioners, who also are shareholders in the company and Frederick Lionel Harcourt and Mrs. Harcourt, for a declaration that the shares standing in the names of the two persons last mentioned were invalid and that neither of them had paid or advanced any money to the company to entitle them to receive such shares and that the register of the company should be rectified. At that time F. L. Harcourt was shown in the company's share register as the holder of 73 ordinary shares and Mrs. Harcourt of 75 ordinary shares and 275 preference shares.3. On 30th July 1929, by consent, a reference was ordered under the schedule to t...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh Chandra Sarkar Vs. Bireswar Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal559
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and cesses for the Bengali years 1327 to 1330 in respect of about 16 bighas of land mentioned in the plaint which the plaintiff alleged the defendant held under him at an annual rent of Rs. 35. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant held this plaint land under a compromise arrived at between the parties in a previous rent suit No. 851 of 1918 and the case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had paid rent in respect of this tenancy for the years 1325 and 1326. The substantial defence raised by the defendant was that there was no separate tenancy of 16 bighas as alleged by the plaintiff at a jama of Rs. 35 but that the plaint land really appertained to the jama of Rs. 91 held by him under the plaintiff. With regard to the petition of compromise in the previous rent suit the case of the defendant was that it was an invalid, illegal and fraudulent compromise a...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Benozir Ahmad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal716
1. The nine accused in this case were charged with offences under Sections 120 B/395, 399, 402, I.P.C., also under Sections 304/34 and 326/34 and 326/109 in respect of the death of one Idris. In addition, two of the accused namely Shamsul Huda and Benozir Ahmad, were charged under Section 302 with the murder of one Harimohan Roy and another accused Oliulla with abetment of the murder.2. The jury found all the accused not guilty of the charges relating to the deaths of Idris and Harimohan. Six of the nine accused were found guilty under Sections 120-B, 395, 399 and 402, in the case of Oliulla by a majority of 4 to 3, and in the case of the other five unanimously. Benozir Ahmad was found not guilty and acquitted also of the charges under those sections by a majority of 5 to 2. In the case of Benozir Ahmad the Government has appealed against his acquittal of the charges under Sections 120-B/395, 399 and 402 and the accused who have been convicted have appealed against their conviction.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Sutradhar Vs. Surendra Mohan Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal761,129Ind.Cas.776
Suhrawardy, J.1. The circumstances of this case are that the petitioner obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor and executed it in the. Court of the Fourth Munsif at Habiganj who had jurisdiction to try suits up to the value of Rs. 1,000. Opposite parties 1 and 2 also got money decrees against the same judgment debtor in the Court of the Third Munsif at Habiganj who had jurisdiction up to Rs. 2,000 and in whose Court the suits brought by the opposite parties lay. The petitioner took out execution of his decree in Execution Case No. 106 of 1929 of the Fourth Munsifs Court and some properties of the judgment-debtor were sold on 9th August 1929. One lot was purchased by a stranger for Rs. 500 and that amount was put in. The petitioner as decree-holder purchased two other lots for Rs. 600. On the day of the sale only the poundage fee of Rs. 12-8-0 was accepted from the petitioner. This was done at the request of the petitioner to accept only the poundage fee and allow him to se...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Satis Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal762,129Ind.Cas.419
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., to have it declared that the plaintiff is entitled to a certain property and that the attachment which has been made thereon is invalid. The position is this there was one Jagat Chunder Roy, The defendants brought a suit against him for possession of some property and obtained a decree. The decree was in 1907, and under the old Code, an order was made that the question and the amount of masne profits ware to be decided in execution. An appeal by Jagat : Chunder Roy was dismissed by Jagat Chunder Roy died in 1912 having by his will left the property which is now in question to the shebaits of a certain idol. A question hag been raised whether a mere charge was given upon the property in favour of the idol and I am clear and the lower Courts have found that the whole of the beneficial interest in that property was given to the idol. After Boy's death the defendants proceeded in execu...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Roy and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal5
Cuming, J.1. In the case out of which this rule has arisen the two petitioners, Nanda Lal Roy and Pulin Krishna Roy, were fined Rs. 50 each under Section 386(1) (c), Calcutta Municipal Act. for permitting certain premises, namely No. 37, Chittaranjan Avenue South, to be used for the purpose of keeping cattle and horses for hire, for sale and for the sale of the produce thereof without a license from the Chief Executive Officer. The two petitioners contend that they are not in actual occupation of the premises, that they are the landlords of the premises and that the premises have been let by them to one Pradumna Misser and that in such circumstances they cannot be held liable if the premises are used for the purpose of keeping horses for hire and milch cows for selling milk without a license. It would appear that the premises have been let by these two petitioners to one Pradumna Misser. It would also appear and it is denied that Pradumna Misser has been fined Rs. 25 in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Kumar Das and anr. Vs. Chairman of the Municipal Commissione ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal288
Costello, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs Satyendra Kumar Das and Sachi Nandan Das are seeking a declaration that they are qualified to be elected under the Bengal Municipal Election Rules of 1927 as commissioners of the Municipal Council of Dacca and that they are not disqualified under Section 57, Bengal Municipal Act, that is to say, Act 3 of 1881:. The facts as alleged by the plaintiffs are these. They say that they were persons of independent means and properties, that they were recorded as independent voters in the register of voters of Ward 1 of the Dacca Municipality, and that neither of them had anything to do with the business of their fathers Rebati Mohan Das (father of plaintiff l) and Hrishi Kesh Das (father of plaintiff 2). The fathers of the plaintiffs owned the joint firm Krishna Mohan Rebati Mohan Das at Faridabad Dacca which was a firm dealing in bricks and other materials of a like kind. The plaintiff's case was that this firm had supplied pugged jhama that is to sa...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Debnath and ors. Vs. Ganga Dhar Debnath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal109
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises in a suit for partition. There were numerous defendants to the suit; defendants 12 and 14 however, did not enter appearance in the suit; the other defendants filed their written statements and on 2nd April 1925 issues were settled. Nearly a year after, an application was filed by all the parties to the suit except defendants 12 and 14 in which they prayed to the Court for referring the matter in dispute to arbitration. The Court acceded to the application and referred the matter in dispute between the parties to arbitration on 7th April 1926. The arbitrators submitted their award. Some of the defendants objected to the award on the ground that the reference was invalid as all the parties to the suit namely defendants 12 and 14 did not join in the application for reference to arbitration. The objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that defendants 12 and 14 were not interested in the subject-matter of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnarayan Satyapal Vs. Carey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal491
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 15,000 as damages for the wrongful repudiation and breach of contract, whereby the defendants agreed to sell and deliver coal to the plaintiff. The contract is said to have been made on 27th June 1928, and by it the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiff the whole of the output of Messrs. Linton's Angarpathra Colliery's slack coal from such date until the end of June 1929. That contract was subject to an existing contract with Messrs. Andrew, Yule & Co., Ltd., which was current until the end of the year 1928, and the plaintiff was only to receive so much coal as was available after Messrs. Andrew, Yule & Co., Ltd., had been satisfied. At the hearing, it has not been denied that the contract in suit was entered into and that there has been a breach, and the only question of substance is whether the defendants are personally liable, though there may have to be a reference to ascertain the damages in the event of their liability be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »