Kolkata Court February 1932 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.
Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad Vs. Kumar Dinendra Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal844,140Ind.Cas.866
Pearson, J.1. This Rule has been obtained on behalf of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and is directed against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal dated 2nd October 1931 whereby he directed the investment of a sum of Rs. 9,88,000 out of the compensation money at present invested in Government bonds in the purchase of premises No. 8 Esplanade East belonging to Kumar Dinendra Mullick. Certain properties of the Nawab Bahadur in Calcutta known as Moidaputty properties had been acquired on behalf of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the compensation money had been invested under Section 32 (1) (b), Land Acquisition Act in Government securities (1933-5% bonds) of the face value . of Rs. 14,68,200 producing an annual income of Rs. 73,589. The acquired properties were part of those held by the Nawab Bahadur under the Murshidabad Act (15 of 1891) and the schedule to that Act, whereby certain lands were settled for the maintenance and support of the Nawab Bahadur for...
Surendra Nath Haldar Vs. Ramanath Barman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal825
Mallik, J.1. The suit that has given rise to the present appeal was one for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of some landed properties. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are briefly those : The plaintiff obtained a money decree against the predecessors of defendants 1 to 5 and defendant 6 and on 12th March 1903 in execution of that decree he attached the entire property in suit. On 18th April 1903 there were two claim cases tiled against that attachment. One was in respect of the one-third share of the property and the other was in respect of the remaining two-thirds. The first claim was rejected, but the second case that was brought by one Nanda Kumar Chatterjee was allowed on 11th May 1903 and the two-thirds share was thereupon released from attachment. During the pendency of the claim case however Nanda Kumar sold the two-thirds share to defendant 7. This was on 19th April 1903. On 19th May 1903 the one-third share was purchased by...
Khudiram Vs. Shomnath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal454
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 6 and arises out of a suit brought by the several plaintiffs in the suit for setting aside an ex parts rent decree and the sale held in execution of the said decree. The allegation of the plaintiff's in substance is that no rent was due to the landlords at the time the rent suit in question was decreed ex parte against the tenants excepting defendant 7 who made a confession of the knowledge of the judgment. It is further alleged that there was a fraudulent suppression of notice on all the defendants. It is further alleged that the sale proclamation and other processes in the execution proceedings ware fraudulently suppressed; and the important part of the allegation is that the judgment-debtor No. 7 purchased the property in the name of his son who is the appellant before us in collusion with the decree-holder, in the suit. The defence taken by the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable. That defence prevailed with the Court of first...
Badiur Baharnan and ors. Vs. Mokram Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal687
Costello, J.1. In this matter one Rahatan Bia instituted a suit in the Court of the Second Sadar Munsif, Chittagong. for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 46-4.0 alleged to be owing by the opposite party in this present proceeding for rent. She obtained an ex parte decree against the defendants on 15th July 1930. Subsequently one of the defendants Mokram Ali who is one of the opposite parties in these proceedings, made an application under Order 9, Rule 13. Civil P. C., for setting aside of that decree on the ground that no summons had been served upon him and that he only became aware of the making of the decree on 3rd August 1930., The learned Munsif who was possessed of the powers referred to in Section 153, sub-para, (b), Ben. Ten. Act, after considering the evidence put before him by the parties, came to the conclusion that the summons in the suit had been duly served and he accordingly on 30th January 1931 rejected the application made under Order 9, Rule 13. Thereupon Mokram Ali resp...
Nourangilal Marwari Vs. Sm. Charubala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal766,140Ind.Cas.747
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a money decree was passed in September 1916 in favour of two decree-holders against three judgment debtors for some Rs. 2,000 and was affirmed on appeal on 4th June 1918. After certain execution proceedings which led to nothing both the original decree-holders died and the present appellant says that under the Mitakshara law their interest in the decree passed to him by survivorship. On 7th May 1927 he presented an execution petition being No. 64 of 1927 and obtained an ex parte order substituting him as decree-holder. The Court made an order for the issue of notices under Rule 22, Order 21, Civil P. C. It is now said on behalf of the respondents and may be accepted that these notices were never served. On 28th June 1927, for anything we know, just because these notices had not been served the Court dismissed that execution case for default as it was well entitled on that hypothesis to do. On 2nd June 1980, within three years of that order, the appellant bro...
Promatha Nath Ghose Vs. Iswar Gopal Jiu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal831,140Ind.Cas.445
Costello, J.1. In this matter the applicant who is one of the defendants in: the suit, made an application to the Court asking that the plaint should be struck out and that the suit should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had not or, at any rate had no longer any cause of action. What is said is that the suit is solely the outcome of what is usually described as a claim case in which the defendant who is the, petitioned before me Claimed to be interested in a certain property in Tollygunge in regard to which the plaintiff in the suit was maintaining that defendants 2 to 9 were his tenants and that their interest was liable to be disposed of in order to satisfy a decree for rent which the plaintiff' had already obtained. In the claim matter it, was decided that the present petitioner had, acquired the interest of the other defendants by means of a sale at an auction which took place in the year 1910. The plaintiff instituted the present suit in order to' get rid of the deci...
Padmamoni Dassi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal457
Panckridge, J.1. The appellant Braja Mohan Saha has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 6, Sub-section (1), Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1923, and the appellant Padmamoni Dasi has been convicted of abetment of the offence of which appellant 1 has been convicted, that is to say, she has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 6, Sub-section (1) of the said Act read with Section 109, I. P. C.2. The facts of the case are as follows: Inspector Madan Mohan Chakravarty of the Calcutta Police received instructions to watch a certain house numbered 12/6, Nilmoni Dutt Lane, with a view to discover whether or not it was used as a brothel. He proceeded to watch the house during the early part of the night and he discovered that several men visited it. After having watched for two nights he entered the house in plain clothes. He found two men there and the girl in respect of whom the appellants have been convicted, namely, Durgabala Dasi with them on...
Sm. Jinnat Bibi Vs. Howrah Jute Mill Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal751,140Ind.Cas.155
Patterson, J.1. By this rule the opposite party was called upon to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and the hearing of the suit instituted against the petitioner stayed pending the disposal of the appeal mentioned in para. 7 of the petition to this Court or why such other order should not be made as this Court should seem fit and proper. It appears that since this rule was issued the appeal referred to therein has been dismissed. It further appears that the petitioner has preferred a second appeal to this Court and that the appeal to this Court has been admitted and is now pending. In these circumstances the petitioner has by a further application prayed that the scope of the rule be extended so as to cover the second appeal now pending in this Court.2. The petitioner's prayer to the trial Court was that the suit be stayed till the final disposal of the previous suit and the rule is directed against the order of the trial Court rejecting this prayer. In 't...
Banshi Dewan and ors. Vs. MajaharuddIn Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal83
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the defendants appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi whereby be reversed an order of the Munsif of Naogaon. It appears that the plaintiff brought two rent suits against different defendants, that in April 1925 these suits were decreed by the trial Court, that appeals were brought to the Subordinate Judge against the decrees and that on 14th February 1927, the Subordinate Judge first of all allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees and remanded the cases for fresh trial on the lines laid down by his judgment upon payment of Rs. 15 in each case for costs by the plaintiff to the defendants. His order went on to say:If this cost is not paid within two months from the date of arrival of the record in the original Court, the suit shall be dismissed. If this costs is timely paid, then there shall be a retrial.2. It seems that the record was not received in the trial Court until 8th April 1927. Two months elapsed without the plaintiff pa...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Abdul Haq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal263
Mallik, J.1. The suit that has given rise to this second appeal was for declaration of the plaintiff's title to certain tea garden shares. The allegations on which the suit was instituted were that the tea garden shares had been purchased with plaintiff's money and that in an insolvency proceeding started by one of the defendants the petitioner for insolvency had claimed a certain interest in these tea shares, with the result that a cloud had been thrown on the plaintiff's title to those shares. The defence inter alia was that the shares were not the exclusive property of the plaintiff, but were the property of a firm of which the plaintiff and the defendants were the partners and that the plaintiff's suit having been instituted more than one year after the order had been passed by the insolvency Court in respect of the shares under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, the plaintiff's suit was barred under Article 13, Limitation Act. Both these points taken by the defence were found b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »