Kolkata Court August 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.
Sajanisundari Dasi Vs. Jogendra Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal591
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit by a Hindu widow for recovery of maintenance and of certain ornaments and for other reliefs. She instituted the suit as a pauper, obtained a decree in part and has preferred this appeal in forma pauperis.2. Three brothers, Madanmohan, Jagamohan and Radhagovinda, lived as members of a Hindu family, joint in mess and property. Madanmohan had five sons, Rajani. Murali, Jadunath, Priyanath and Brajanath. Brajanath was taken' in adoption by Jagamohan, but he died soon after; and on that Jadunath was so taken in 1311 B. S. Jadunath at the time was already married to the plaintiff and the latter had a child in her womb. Radhagovinda died leaving a daughter, and, it is said, after having taken Priyanath in adoption, Jadunath died in 1313 B. S., leaving his widow the plaintiff, and the daughter Gopeshwari. In 1317 B. S. Jagamohan separated from Madanmohan.3. The plaintiffs case was that since 1317, when the separation took place, she was being maintained ...
Deb Kumar Ray Choudhury Vs. Anath Bandhu Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal421
Guha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff for realization of money due on a bond executed by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 3 was surety for the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the debt. The plaintiff's claim in suit was contested by defendant 1 on the ground that the bond on which the plaintiff's claim was based was given at a time when a criminal case was pending against him, and that after the execution of the bond the criminal case was withdrawn. It was averred that defendant 1 did not in point of fact owe any money to the plaintiff at the time when the bond was executed. It appears that the bond in suit for Rs. 480, and a kobala for Rs. 300 were executed and a cash payment of Rs. 352 odd was made during the pendency of a noncompoundable criminal case in which there was a charge of criminal breach of trust against defendant 1. The kobala and the bond in suit were executed on 28th July 1924, and the documents were registered on 14th August ...
Deo Kumar Roy Choudhury Vs. Ananth Bandhu Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.133
Guha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff for realization of money due on a bond executed by the defendants Nos, 1 and 2. The defendant No. 3 was surety for the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the debt. The plaintiff's claim in suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 on the ground that the bond on which the plaintiff's claim was based, was given at a time when a criminal case was pending against him, and that after the execution of the bond, the criminal case was withdrawn. It was a verred that the defendant No. 1 did not in point of fact owe any money to the plaintiff at the time when the bond was executed. It ap pears that the bond in suit for Rs. 480 and a kobala for Rs. 300 were executed and a cash payment of Rs. 352 odd was made during the pendency of a non-compoundable criminal case in which there was a charge of criminal breach of trust against the defendant No. 1, The kobala and the bond in suit were executed on the 28th July, ...
Provat Ranjan Barat and ors. Vs. Uma Sankar Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal438
Rankin, C.J.1. These are two appeals from an order dated 9th May 1930 made by Costello, J., directing that a complaint be made and forwarded to the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal P.C., The appellant in Appeal No. 7 is Provat Ranjan Barat and the appellants in Appeal No. 53 are Sivapada Bhattacharjee, Ramendra Lal Gupta and Satis Chandra Bose.2. It appears that one Uma Sankar Chatterjee applied for Letters of Administration to the estate of Sreemuthy Krishna Bhamini Devi, alleging that she died intestate on 18th February 1928. Thereupon the appellant Provat Ranjan Barat filed a caveat on 19th April 1928 by Ramendra Lal Gupta, an attorney of this Court, claiming to be the sole executor under a will which turns out to bear date 22nd Magh 1334 B.S. A caveat was also filed on behalf of the Secretary of State and another on behalf of one Jungilal Ghose. The matter having been set down as a contentious cause, came on for hearing before the learned Judge on 20th Februa...
Nitya Gopal Roy Vs. Nani Gopal Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal454
1. This rule was issued upon one ground, namely that the judgment of the Court of appeal below is not in accordance with law and as such ought to be set aside. The judgment of the learned District Judge is as follows:Heard the appellant. I do not think it necessary to direct prosecution of the respondent in this case, Appeal dismissed.2. We do not think that this judgment fulfils the requirements of law. This is a case under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and an appeal lies under Section 476-B. Presumably therefore the provisions of Section 367, Criminal P.C., will apply. No attempt has however been made to comply with the provisions of that section. Even if the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were applicable the result would be the same as in that case Order 41, Rule 31 would apply.3. The rule is made absolute. The order complained against is set aside and the case is sent back in order that the appeal may be reheard by the Additional District Judge of Burdwan....
Haribux Shroff Vs. Dwijendra Mohan Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal671
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case the suit was brought on 14th January 1924, and in the same year, appearance was entered and one of the defendants was dismissed from the suit. Nothing much seems to have happened until January 1926, when another defendant was substituted and, in December of that year, an order for discovery was made. In February 1927 the defendants obtained leave to deposit a sum of money in satisfaction of their liability in Court and. on 5th April 1928 the case came before the learned Judge on the original side under Rule 36, Ch. 10 of the Rules of the High Court. On that occasion, the suit was not dismissed for default, but it was ordered to be put on the Warning List after the Easter vacation and it duly went into the Prospective List. On 24th May 1928, it was on the Peremptory List and came on for hearing and by consent, an order was made referring the matter in suit to the arbitration of an arbitrator. On 18th July, it appears that the order was served upon the arbitr...
In Re: Janbazar Manna Estate Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal692
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application under Section 166, Companies Act 1913, praying that the Janbazar Manna Estate, Limited, be wound up by the Court. It is a joint petition presented by two alleged creditors, Messrs. K. K. Dutt & Co., a firm of attorneys, and one Surendradeb Manna of No. 2, Taliganj Circular Road. The grounds on which the order is sought are : (1) that the company is unable to pay its debts and (2) that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.2. The company is a private company and it is necessary to state briefly the circumstances which led to its formation. These are set out in some detail in a case, Sudhirendra Deb Manna v. Ranen-dra Deb Manna : AIR1930Cal539 , where will be found the judgments of Costello, J., sitting as Judge of first instance and also of Ran-kin, C. J., and C. C. Ghose, J., dismissing an appeal against the decision of Costello, J.3. A pedigree of the Manna family has been tendered in this application and I incorporate it ...
Dwipal Chandra Bardhan Vs. Jiban Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal574
1. This appeal has arisen out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 24-Pargannas, on 6th October 1928. The facts necessary to be stated are the following. The decree-holder obtained a mortgage-decree and in execution thereof purchased the mortgaged property which was a dwelling house and thereafter obtained an order for delivery of possession. In the course of the proceedings that followed resistance was offered to his obtaining possession of two rooms in the house with the result that he complained of such obstruction having been caused to him not only by the judgment-debtor but also by the judgment-debtor's wife in her personal capacity as well as in her capacity as guardian of her minor son. This application having been made before the Court on behalf of the decree-holder complaining of the aforesaid obstruction, opposition was entered on behalf of the judgment debtor's wife. She alleged that the minor was born before the date of the suit and had not been made a party thereto...
Basanta Kumar Biswas and ors. Vs. Prosonna Kumar Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal47
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, the contention of Mr. Majumdar on behalf of the appellants is right in principle and there is not enough in the language of the particular judgment and decree before me to prevent me from giving effect to what I consider to be the justice of the matter. This is a case in which the Collector took action under the recent Statute Act 5 (B.C.) of 1920, the Bengal Alluvial Lands Act in respect of a certain chur. Under that Act, where the Collector thinks that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace, he may at once attach the land and take proper steps to refer the matters of the different claimants to the civil Court. By Section 5, when the survey and map referred to in Section 4 have been completed, the Collector shall as soon as possible pass an order making a reference to the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district for a decision as to what person has a title to the land and shall state in such order the names of the parties...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›