Kolkata Court August 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.
Collector of Dacca Vs. Ashraf Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal312
1. These are eight appeals by the Collector of Dacca and arise out of eight references under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, at the instance of the proprietors of the land which have been compulsorily acquired for the purposes of certain sewerage works in the town of Dacca. The Collector valued the interest of the proprietors on a certain basis. He first of all determined the average rate of rent per bigha which the tenants were liable to pay to the proprietors and he ascertained the same at the rate of Rs. 2 per bigha. After ascertaining it the Collector was of opinion that the proprietors will get 25 years purchase of this after deduction of the collection charges and the Government revenue. To this the Collector added in favour of the proprietors a further sum equal to 1/4th share of the compensation assessed for tenancy interest on account of the loss of selami. This was the method adopted with reference to lands in the occupation of tenants. With regard to the lands in the khas ...
Official Assignee of Calcutta Vs. Frederick Lionel Harcourt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal762,140Ind.Cas.812
Rankin, C.J.1. In the year 1921, Mr. Frederick Lionel Harcourt was adjudicated an insolvent and, by an order made on 8th March 1922 upon his application for discharge, it was ordered that the insolvent be given an immediate discharge upon the condition that he consented to a judgment being entered up against him for the sum of Rupees 28,365-5-8. It has been found as a fact by the learned Judge and not disputed before us that the insolvent signed on a proper form his consent to a judgment for that amount being entered up against him. He swears that he did so on the day the order was made. No further steps however were taken for the drawing up of the order made upon the application for discharge and it appears to be clear that that order has not yet been drawn up, signed or filed. Bight years afterwards, in May 1930, the insolvent who had been conducting himself as he tells us, on the footing that he had obtained an immediate--if a conditional--discharge settled a suit which he had broug...
Amar Krishna Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Jagat Bandhu Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal719
ORDERRankin, C.J. 1. In this case a decree-holder's application presented on 14th May 1929 for execution of a decree dated 30th January 1922 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. In June 1925 a previous petition for execution was presented and was dismissed on 12th September 1925. Prima facie therefore execution was barred after 12th September 1928, but the lower appellate Court has held that on 18th July 1928 the judgment-debtor paid Rs. 25 on account of the decree, but that no acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of or in any writing signed by the judgment-debtor so as to render applicable Section 20, Limitation Act.2. The finding is that the money was sent by the hand of a third person together with a letter which purported to come from the judgment-debtor, but was not in his handwriting or signed by him. In his judgment the learned Subordinate Judge says:After making the payment through a third person without his own writing or signature and after dupi...
Ganesh Chandra Khan and Sons Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal117
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule is a firm carrying on business in lime and its case is that since May 1931 the articles belonging to the firm had been stored at 11 Neogi Ghat Street. The owner of the firm one Ganesh Chandra Khan, resides at 75-B, Baghbazar Street, but nothing is stored there. On 2nd June 1931 the firm applied to the License Officer of the Calcutta Corporation for a license in respect of dealing in and storing of lime at No. 11 Neogi Ghat Street, and again applied on 5th June 1931 to the Health Officer, District 1, for a license as aforesaid. These applications have not yet been disposed of. But on or about 6th June 1931, a summons was left at the residential house of Ganesh Chandra Khan. In that summons the petitioner firm was required to answer a charge made under Section 386(1)(a), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, for using or attempting to use the premises No. 73-B, Baghbazar Street, for storing lime without license. The date of the offence was given as ...
Sikandar Ali and anr. Vs. Kushal Chandra Sarma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal418
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cachar restoring a suit which was dismissed for default. The main ground upon which we are asked to interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C., is that the Court had no jurisdiction to restore the suit under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C. What happened was that at the date of hearing which was fixed for 3rd November 1930 the plaintiff filed a petition for adjournment on the ground, as it appears from the subsequent proceedings, that he had engaged two pleaders from Sylhet to conduct his case, one of whom was dead and the other was unable to come to Cachar on that date. The petition was rejected on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for an adjournment. The plaintiff again applied for time on that date and that petition too was also rejected. Thereupon the plaintiff's pleader stated that he had no further instructions to proceed with the case. The learned Subordinate Judge then called the plaintiff ...
Carr-lazarus Phillips and ors. Vs. Alfred Ernest Mitchell and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal889
Cottello, J.1. This matter is the sequel to a previous suit (No. 1476 of 1928) between the same parties. In the former suit, the present defendants were the plaintiff's and the present plaintiffs were the defendants. The plaintiffs were suing the defendants upon a certain contract of guarantee and their case was that under that contract, Carr Lazarus Phil-dips, Arrathoon Mackertoom Arrathoon and Arrathoon Theodore Greet were liable to pay to them, as the executors of one Arrathoon Stephen, a total sum of Rs. 18 lakhs, which, by the terms of the contract in question, they had guaranteed to the extent of Its. 6 lakhs, each, in respect of a loan of Rs. 40 lakhs made by Arrathoon Stephen to J. C. Galstaun. 'Chat loan had been made upon the security of a mortgage of certain properties belonging to the borrower. The case for the plaintiffs in the previous suit was that, by the terms of the contract of guarantee, the guarantors were liable to pay the sum they had respectively agreed to pay, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›