Kolkata Court June 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.
Ram Kinkar Hazra Vs. Hareram Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal181,145Ind.Cas.575
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal deals with a question of competition between two mortgages. Plaintiffs rely upon the first mortgage which was executed on 9th May 1908. There was a decree and in execution of that decree they purchased on 11th November 1916 and obtained possession through Court on 3rd June 1917. Defendants took the second mortgage in January or February 1911, obtained a decree thereon, and in execution of it purchased the property on 13th June 1922, and took possession on 18th July 1923. In neither of the two mortgage suits was the other mortgagee made a party. Plaintiffs allege that they were wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants on 18th July 1923 and so they sue to recover possession. The defence is that the plaintiffs' decree is a nullity as against the defendants who were no parties to it. Then arose the question as to which of the parties was entitled to possession and further, which was entitled to the first right to redeem. This latter question also was definitel...
Moolji Sicka and Co. Vs. B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal257,137Ind.Cas.445
Jack, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued calling on the B. N. Ry. Co. to show cause why the order of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Sealdah, dismissing the petitioner's suit for dam-ages on account of the destruction by fire of goods made over to the company at Pendrai for dispatch to Gondia on 3rd May 1929 should not be set aside. The Rule was granted on the ground that the finding of the Court below was without reference to material evidence, namely, the documentary evidence in the case, the evidence on the defendant's side and the admissions made in the written statement and in the correspondence. I have looked through the evidence referred to and have found that the only important point arising out of the documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiff is the fact that the plaintiff had ascertained that waggons were available and was allowed to stack 81 bags of biri leaves for dispatch to Gondia outside the goods shed on 3rd May and a further 69 bags on 4th May. The l...
Sheikh Abdulla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal287,137Ind.Cas.133
1. The facts which have given rise to the present rule wore briefly these: On 29th July 1930 the petitioner lodged an information before the police making some allegations against Sheikh Aziz and several other persons. Two days later, viz., on 31st July, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate in which his prayer was that the police investigation might be expedited. The ultimate result of the investigation was that the case was reported by them to be false. Thereupon on 26th August 1930, the Magistrate directed the investigating officer to make a formal complaint against the petitioner under Section 211, I. P. O. On 1st September 1930 a formal complaint was accordingly, made by the police-officer and process was issued against the petitioner under Section 211 and served on him on the 12th. On the 13th the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate impugning the report of the police and praying that process might be issued against the persons he had accused befo...
Sumermull Surena Vs. Bansilal Abirchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal310,137Ind.Cas.299
Rankin, C.J.1. On 18th July 1930 an adjudication order was made in this Court against the firm of Sumermull Surena of which the partners are two persons, Sumermull Surena and Udai Chand Ram-pooria. The adjudication order was made on the debtor's own petition and it appears that at the time when the petition was presented both these individuals had gone to Bikanir. In the Rule obtained by them, and out of which the present appeal arises, they were described as both residing in Bikanir though Udai Chand has made an affidavit in which ho denies that their permanent residence is Bikanir saying that they generally and usually reside in Calcutta save and except for occasional visits to Bikanir. Shortly after the adjudication order, namely, on 15th August 1930, the insolvents submitted a scheme of composition which was accepted by the creditors on 1st September and approved by the Court by an order dated 10th September 1930. The scheme provided that the secured creditors would be paid in full...
AminaddIn Munshi Vs. TajaddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal538
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 and arises out of a suit for partition. The appeal is from the preliminary decree for partition. The relationship between the parties to the suit is shown in the genealogical table which has been handed over to us and is admitted by both parties and which is appended to the end of our judgment. It appears from that tree that one Jainaddi died leaving behind him two sons Tamijaddin and Najamuddin and a daughter Kalar Ma. Tamijaddin died sometime in 1324 B.S. Beaving behind him three sons Aminuddin who is defendant 1 to the suit, Abdul Majid (defendant 2) and Faijuddin (defendant 3) and two daughters Daragar Ma (defendant 4) and Nessa Bibi who is defendant 5 in this litigation. Najamuddin died in 1322 B.S. leaving behind him Tajaddin and Ainuddi two sons who are plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Asmateranessa a daughter who is plaintiff 3 in this litigation. Kalar Ma the daughter of Jainaddi died leaving behind her Kalimuddin who is defendant 6 in the litigation....
In Re: Ananda Lal Chakrabutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal346,137Ind.Cas.469
Rankin, C.J. 1. These are three appeals from an award of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal and the question which arises is the question of the proper amount of court-fee payable on the appeals. The appellants are zamindars and it appears that a certain property in Diamond Harbour Road has been compulsorily acquired; portions of the property acquired lie within the ambit of the zamindaries of the appellants. The Tribunal has held however that the property is revenue-free property and no part of the mal lands of the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal has allotted the whole of the compensation to the Kainani Industrial Bank rejecting the claim of the zamindar appellants to any portion thereof. From that decision, the zamindars have appealed to the High Court. The question arises in part because of the recent decision of the Privy Council in the case of Secy. of State v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society, Ltd. where it was held that the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act 18...
Rajani Mandal Vs. Digindra Mohan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal440,137Ind.Cas.788,137Ind.Cas.788
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Madaripore in a suit for money due on a bond should not be sot aside on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The question at issue here is whether the endorsement of the payment of interst made on 2nd September 1928 by a scribe on behalf of the debtor, and also signed by him on behalf of the debtor who was illiterate and who made no mark beneath the endorsement, should be taken to save limitation as having been made within three years of the suit. In Section 20, Limitation Act, it is provided that the limitation can be saved where there is an acknowledgment of the payment of interest within the period of limitation in the handwriting of or in writing signed by the person making the same, and the question is whether the signature made by the scribe on behalf of the debtor who was making the payment brings him under this provision. Under the General Clauses Act...
Harishankar Pal Vs. Saradaprasad Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal516
Ameer Ali, J.1. The report of the Official Referee as to the title of No. 2, Shashibhooshan Soor's Lane, is confirmed.2. The outstanding question is as to the costs of the reference as to title.3. The short facts are as follows:Defendant 1 contracted to sell the property in question by certain terms of settlement, dated 6th April 1923, subject to approval of title by the plaintiff's solicitors and free from all emcumbrances, for a price of Rs. 38,000.4. On 2nd May 1923, defendant 1 gave notice to the plaintiff that the contract would be rescinded failing completion within 10 days.5. On 9th June 1923, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance.6. On 26th March 1926, a decree was passed directing an inquiry as to whether the defendant 1, can make out a good title' to the premises and, if so, ordering the defendant to convey. The plaintiff obtained the costs of the suit; the consideration of all further directions and the subsequent costs of the suit were reserved.7. Th...
Sashadhar Acharjya Vs. Charles Tegart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal394
Buckland, J.1. Two applications are before me but one order will cover them both. One is a formal application by an advocate not entitled to appear and plead on the original side of this Court, for permission to appear, move, act, argue and examine witnesses and take all other incidental and consequential steps and things in this matter, &c.; The second application, which is that in which he desires to be allowed to appear is one which he informs me is substantially the same as that which he has already moved before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Pearson, J.2. It appears that the application to that Bench was made under Ch. 37, Rule 2 of the Bales of the original side, headed Crown Side Rules, which provides, that applications for the exercise of the extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Clauses 24 and 29, . Letters Patent, shall be heard and disposed of on the appellate side; but oases directed to be tried b...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. J.J. Andrews
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal639
1. In this case the Inspector of Factories, Bengal, complained against J. J. Andrews, the Manager of the Light foot Refrigerator Co., at Howrah, that from an examination of the factory wages book, he had discovered that certain persons had been employed on a particular day in contravention of Section 26, Factories Act, for more than the hours specified for all employees, namely, seven and half hours for each shift.2. Section 26 provides thatThe manager of a factory shall fix specified hours for the employment of each person employed in such factory, and no person shall be employed except during such hours.3. During the hearing before the Magistrate it appeared that this factory had been exempted by the Government of Bengal, under Section 30 (1) (c), from the provisions of Sections 21, 22 and 28, as being one of a class of factories in which the work necessitated continuous production. Sections 21 and 22 provide for daily rest periods and weekly holidays and Section 28 forbids the emplo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »