Kolkata Court September 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 Goswami Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal377,137Ind.Cas.179
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this rule has been convicted under Section 477-A, I. P. C, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case for the prosecution which has resulted in the aforesaid conviction is briefly this: The petitioner was Head Clerk under a Permanent Way 'Inspector, B. Edwards, in the East Indian Railway at Howrah. One Panchanon Dutt was a pay clerk. Two persons Bhunoo and Punit were employed as office peons under the petitioner. The prosecution case is that between the dates 16th March 1928 and 15th February 1929 these persons were concerned in making payments to coolies employed on the railway. In token of receipt thumb-impressions of the payees were taken on pay sheets during the ten months of this period. According to the evidence, the duty of the petitioner as Head Clerk was to calculate wages and to enter the amounts on the pay sheets, while the pay clerk made the payments and certificates of correctness were given at the bottom of the...
Chairman of the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality Vs. Haripada ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal315
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. The facts involved, shortly stated, are as follows: The Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah instituted two suits against the present respondents for realization of arrears of Municipal taxes due on a holding situate within the limits of the Howrah Municipality. He prayed for a declaration that the said arrears formed a charge on the holding in question and for an order that he might be at liberty to enforce the said charge. The Munsif decreed the two suits and thereafter appeals from the decision of the Munsif by the present respondents were dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. Thereafter, they (the present respondents) preferred two second appeals to this Court. These appeals came on for hearing before Mukerji, J., when, by his judgment dated 20th January 1931, he allowed the appeals. Mukerji, J., was of opinion that the decrees, in so far as they declared a charge and provided for the enforcement thereof, could not be supported. The Chairman of the...
Nalini Sundari Debya Vs. Narendra Chandra Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal641
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. I have carefully examined the papers placed before me and I am of opinion that the present application cannot properly come under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. In my opinion it is not also an application for review of judgment within the moaning of the relative provisions in the Court-fees Act. I think it is sufficient if this application is stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 2 only....
Amalabala Dasi Vs. Sarat Kumari Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal380,137Ind.Cas.375
1. In this case the Subordinate Judge has refused to execute a decree passed on the original side of this Court, upon the ground that the decree-holder had fraudulently brought a suit on the original side of this Court when this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to pass a decree in the suit. He has purported to act upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gora Chand Haldar v. Profulla Kumar Roy : AIR1925Cal907 . What has happened is this: the decree-holder, as plaintiff, instituted a. suit on the original side of this Court for recovery of a sum of money from the judgment-debtors on giving up her charge on a certain property under a mortgage bond which the judgment debtors had executed In the plaint that was filed, it was definitely averred that the money had been advanced in Calcutta and that the mortgagors had agreed to repay the loan with interest in Calcutta, as provided in the deed. In the plaint it was definitely stated that the cause of action for the suit h...
Surja Kanta Das Vs. Jogendra Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal381,137Ind.Cas.378
1. The Courts below in this case have proceeded on the view that there was no period of limitation prescribed for a case of this nature. What has happened is that the said Courts have found on an application which the respondents made for setting aside an auction sale, that notices under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code, had boon suppressed, but that although the said application was made in point of fact beyond oven six years from the date of the sale the application was in time. The sale took place on 22nd February 1923 and the application was made on 6th April 1929. This view on the question of limitation is not correct. Nonservice of the notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., no doubt makes the sale a nullity, but if the sale has to be set aside, and if an application has to be made under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, for that purpose, it must be made within 30 days from the date, of the sale; and if. it is to be treated as one under Section 47, Civil P. C, the allegation being ...
Radha Krishna Das Vs. Beni Madhab Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal552
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court of Midnapur, allowing an application for review. The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of this appeal are the following: There was a suit for partition which the appellant had instituted as plaintiff against three persons as defendants, No, 1 being one Beni Madhab Das, No. 2 one Basanta Kumar Das and No. 3 one Hemanta Kumar Das. After a preliminary decree was passed in the suit a Commissioner was appointed to make the necessary investigation. In the course of that investigation a solenama was filed before the commissioner. The Commissioner made the partition in accordance with the terms of the solenama and submitted his report. When the report was pending consideration, the plaintiff filed a petition of objection regarding the solenama. The Subordinate Judge sent for the pleader for the defendants, but the latter did not appear. It may be stated here that the three defendants, at that stage of t...
Charusila Dassi Vs. Mazaffar Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal674
Suhrawardy, J.1. This revision petition relates to one of the five applications made by the petitioner under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, before the Assistant Settlement Officer for, as she stated in her petition, settlement of fair and equitable rent claiming inter aliaenhancement on the ground of rise in prices of staple food crops, excess rent for excess area and for correction of the entries in the Record of Rights in respect of the jama by incorporation of the hajat (or a portion of the rent kept in suspension out of grace by the landlord) with the jama recorded.2. The applications were made as regards 201 tenancies or holdings and were divided into five groups, each application relating to a number of cases. The grouping was done in accordance with Rule 60 (4) of the Rules framed by the Bengal Government under the Bengal Tenancy Act, the several tenancies being in one village. The first application referred to 52 khatians, the second to 43, the third to 39, the fourth 33 and the f...
Tripti Prokas Nandy Vs. Biseswar Lal Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal517
1. These two appeals have been preferred by certain judgment-debtors from two orders passed in an execution case by which their objections under Section 47, Civil P.C., were disallowed. The facts necessary to be stated for the purposes of these appeals are the following: Under a document dated 1871 an allowance or tankha was created by Maharaja Aptab Chand Bahadur of Burdwan in favour of his natural father Lala Bans Gopal Nandy, the said allowance being of an amount of Rs. 1,000 per month pay. able to the said Bans Gopal Nandy and his male descendants in perpetuity. Certain immovable properties were charged for the payment of the said allowance. In 1926 one-sixth of the said amount, namely Its. 166-10-8 per month, was the amount of allowance payable to Lala Gati Prokash Nandy. He mortgaged the right to the said allowance of Rs. 166-10-8 per month, by a document dated 1926. On the basis of this mortgage the mortgagee) instituted a suit in 1928 alleging that the mortgage had been effecte...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›