Kolkata Court March 1931 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 Nath Maity Vs. Susil Kumar Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal604
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the petitioner who is a pleader of Ghatal brought two suits against the opposite party and others, one being a title suit. In the plaint of this suit he mentioned a certain 'raidad' as the foundation of his claim and at a late stage he filed what purported to be a certified copy thereof. It was alleged that this copy was a forgery. The two suits were tried together and dragged on for nearly two years. Eventually the Munsif ordered that the original of this document should be produced and subsequently the petitioner asked to be allowed to withdraw both the suits and permission was given. Thereupon one of the defendants applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Eight months afterwards this application was dismissed for nonprosecution. Then the present opposite party applied for sanction. The Munsif rejected the application remarking that it was belated and that probably there was some ulterior motive behind it. The opposite party appealed to the D...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sm. Sumeria Bewx
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal269
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was the owner of certain premises situated within the Municipal limits of Calcutta. She was the owner of certain hackney carriages and horses with which she carried on the business of hire. She desired to use these premises in question as a stable for those horses and carriages find applied to the Corporation for sanction which however was refused. She continued the business nevertheless and was prosecuted before the Municipal Magistrate and fined. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation had refused her a license for which she applied under the terms of Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. From his decision an appeal was preferred to the Corporation which was considered and disposed of by the Health Committee who supported the decision of the Chief Executive Officer in refusing the license. The plaintiff brought this suit against the Corporation asking for a mandatory injunction on the Corporation...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Srimati Sumeria Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.638
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was the owner of certain premises situated within the Municipal limits of Calcutta. She was the owner of certain hackney carriages and horses with which she carried on the business of hire. She desired to use these premises in question as a stable for those horses and carriages and applied to the Corporation for sanction which however was refused. She continued the business nevertheless and was prosecuted before the Municipal Magistrate and fined. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation had refused her a license for which she applied under the terms of Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. From his decision an appeal was preferred to the Corporation which was considered and disposed of by the Health Committee who supported the decision of the Chief Executive Officer in refusing the license. The plaintiff brought the suit against the Corporation asking for a mandatory injunction on the Corporation t...
Rabindra Nath Mandal and ors. Vs. Chandi Charan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal117
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by some of the heirs of the founders of a private debuttar trust for the framing of a scheme for the preservation and management of the debuttar estate on the allegation of mismanagement and maladministration. The other heirs of the founders did not join the plaintiffs in the suit. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit of the nature and it held also that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of that kind, and, on these findings, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could maintain the suit, but, holding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction, upheld the decree of the Court of first instance. Against that decision the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.2. It appears that according to the admitted and established facts in the pre-sent case the trust that was created was a private debuttar trust. Now the quest...
Haran Chandra Roy Vs. Ram Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal170,136Ind.Cas.538
Mitter, J.1. Those are two appeals by the plaintiffs and arise out of two suits for specific performance of a contract of sale. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Abedul and his cosharers who were jotedars in respect of the land. There wore throe money decrees against them in favour of the plaintiffs in the present suit. The parties were brothers and when each of these persons executed the decrees there were some questions of rateable distribution of assets amongst them. Then on 19th Kartik 1328 B. S., there was an agreement between them that the plaint lands would be purchased in auction in the name of Earn Kumar Roy for Rs. 120 if there were no other bidders for more value and that Earn Kumar Roy would have annas share, Haran Roy 4 annas share and Ananda Roy 4 annas share in the plaint lands so purchased and that subsequently the purchase money, costs of sale certificate and delivery of possession would be paid by them in proportion to their aforesa...
Ghasiram Goenka Vs. Haribux Goverdhonedas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal231
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion this appeal must be allowed. The question is whether a certain decree which was passed by consent should be set aside.2. It appears that the suit was brought against defendant 2 firm for the price of goods sold and delivered amounting to Rs. 3,000 and the present applicants Haribux Goverdhonedas were impleaded as defendant 1 on the footing that they had guaranteed the payment of the price of the goods. At the hearing defendant 2 did not appear and as against them the plaintiff proved his case ex parte and obtained a decree. As regards defendant 1 the firm Haribux Goverdhonedas they did appear by learned Counsel Mr. B.C. Ghose. It appears, according to themselves, that they had taken no pains whatever to give instructions to anybody until the case was actually called on and their learned Counsel had not even read the pleadings when the ease started. The facts have not been inquired into but the case with which the present respondents came before the learned ...
Pramatha Chandra Kar and anr. Vs. Bhagwandas Madanlal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal236
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of my learned brother Panck-ridge, J., upon an issue whether two persons, Mr. Pramatha Chandra Kar and Sir Hari Sankar Paul, are liable as partners of the defendant firm of Dawn & Co.,. on a money decree obtained against the firm by the plaintiffs Bhagwandas Mandal, dated 28th January 1927. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 4,592 in respect of two contracts which were made in 1923 and 1924 respectively and it was brought on 27th March 1925.2. It appears that the case for the appellants Mr. Pramatha Chandra Kar and Sir Hari Sankar Paul is that, in April 1922, there was a dissolution of the partnership and Mr. Dawn, after that date, continued to carry on the business under the name of the old firm, Dawn and Co., the appellants having retired. It is clear that before April 1922 the plaintiff's had transactions with Dawn and Co. at a time-when admittedly the appellants were partners of the firm then trading under that name. The plaintiffs brough...
Sm. Tayefa Khatun Choudhurani and ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Sen Rai and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal165
1. This appeal involves an interesting question of the tenancy law which does not seem to be covered by any authority. The plaintiffs are the owners of Touzi No. 1342 of the Noakhali Collectorate, in which a permanent tenure was . held by one Basanta Kumar Mukherjee. The tenure was recorded in the Record of Rights as a permanent tenure, the rent of which was liable to be enhanced. The plaintiffs brought a suit against Basanta for enhancement of rent. That suit was compromised and in execution of the decree the plaintiffs purchased the tenure in 1913. It appears that in 1900 Basanta had granted permanent mukarrari leases to some of the defendants. In 1925 the plaintiffs brought the present suit for enhancement of rent of the defendants who are Osat talukdars and for recovery of arrears of rent at an enhanced rate. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim enhanced rent from the defendants for the Osat taluk but have allowed a decree to the plaintiff's...
Amulya Chandra Bhaduri Vs. Satish Chandra Giri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal254,137Ind.Cas.238
1. In this case the District Judge of Hooghly has submitted the records of a case brought by the complainant and recommended that action may be taken against the accused for contempt of Court. The complainant is the receiver to the Tarakeswar estate and was appointed as such by the District Judge of Hooghly. He made a petition to the District Judge supported by an affidavit complaining that the defendant in the suit in which the receiver had been appointed and others had interfered with him and obstructed him in the performance of his duties and had by organised methods induced the tenants of this estate to refuse to pay their rents to him. There are also other allegations of obstruction and interference contained in the petition.2. At the hearing it was pointed out that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction in contempts of this kind. The learned Judge therefore referred the matter to this Court apparently being under the impression that this was the procedure contemplated und...
Ram Ranjan Mallik and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal430
Graham, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit to recover possession of 11 logs of sal wood on declaration of title thereto, or in the alternative to recover a sum of Rs. 400 as the value thereof. The plaintiffs' case was that the logs in question belonged to them having formerly been the property of their ancestor one Hari Mohan Malik, who had a timber business in mouza Ballavpara, that the logs foundered in a cyclone in the year 1271 B.S. (1864), and were found embeded in the River Ganges and that the defendant's officers [removed them and rejected plaintiffs' claim thereto. The claim which they set up to the logs was based upon three grounds : firstly, that the logs belonged to their predecessor Hari Mohan Mallik; secondly, that they wore entitled to them because they had been found within the ambit of their mouza Ballavpara; and thirdly, that as finders of the logs they were entitled to them or to such share of them as the Act gave them, under the Treasure Trove A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »