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.
Debi Proshad Kalwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal455
Panckridge, J.1. In this case the Rule was issued on one ground alone, namely, that in the absence of: a definite charge under Section 379/114, I. P. C., the conviction of the petitioner was improper and illegal. The facts of the case are as follows:2. A boy of the name of Dhuman Kalwar was arrested as he was removing a pulley from the premises of Messrs. Burn & Co., Engineers. He explained his possession of the pulley by saying that shortly after his arrival in Calcutta he met the present petitioner who promised him a reward of four annas for carrying a load for him, and that the accused then took him to Messrs, Burn & Co.'s workshops and brought out a crane-pulley and put it on his head.3. The boy Dhuman gave evidence to this effect and his story has been accepted both by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The charge on which the accused was tried was a charge under Section 379. The trying Magistrate, taking into consideration the fact that the actual removal was the work...
Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd. Vs. FoyezuddIn Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal716,140Ind.Cas.252
Patterson, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought by the Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd. against two persons who are alleged to have been shareholders in another trading company known as the City Bricks Co. Ltd.2. In December 1920 the City Bricks Company mortgaged all its assets, including its uncalled capital, to the plaintiff company. In April 1923 the plaintiff company sued the City Bricks Company in the mortgage, and in July of that year, while the mortgage suit was still pending, the City Bricks Company decided to so into voluntary liquidation. A liquidator was appointed in November 1923 and was made a party to the mortgage suit in December 1923. The mortgage suit was decreed in April 1924, and in August of that year the entire mortgaged property, including the unpaid share capital, was purchased by the plaintiff 'company in execution of the mortgage decree. ' Meanwhile, on 27th July 1921, (that is to say after the mortgage to the City Bricks Company, but before the institu...
Saroj Bandhu Bhaduri Vs. Jnanada Sundari Debya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal720,140Ind.Cas.263
Rankin, C.J. 1. This appeal is brought under the Letters Patent from the decision of Mukerji, J., who has granted leave to appeal from the decree made by him on second appeal, Defendant 1 is the appellant before us, the suit having been decreed by the trial Court against both defendants and this decree having been upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge and by Mukerji, J. The plaintiff is the widowed daughter of one Dina Bandhu Bhaduri, now deceased, and the defendants are his two sons. She sued for arrears of the monthly allowance due to her under an instrument which is called a mashahara patra executed in her favour by Dina Bandhu in 1312 B. S. By that instrument, which is addressed to the plaintiff, he purported tomake the provision that yon are to get an allowance at the rate of Rs. 10 from my estate month by month...from the month of Aswin 1312 B.S. as long as you liveand he charged certain specific immovable property with the payment of the said allowance. The question before Us ...
Kader Bux Omer Hyat Vs. Bukt Behari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal768,140Ind.Cas.751
Ameer Ali, J.1. In this case the only point apart from the question as to the form of account raised by the defendants, is a point by way of demurrer that the suit does not lie. As I understand it, the foundation for this demurrer is as follows : that the alleged partnership between what is described in the partnership deed as the firm of Kader Bux Omer Hyat and the two defendants, Mohamed Hussain and Mohamed Siddique, is unlawful according to Indian law and that therefore the Court will not pass a partnership decree and order accounts.2. The argument is as follows : Mr. Bose relies, first of all, on Section 239, Contract Act. Secondly, he relies upon certain cases and in particular upon a judgment of Page, J., in Seodoyal Khemka v. Joharmull Man-mull (1). The argument based on the Contract Act is as follows : that 'partnership' is defined as a relationship between persons, that a firm is not a legal person, and that therefore a partnership which purports to exist between a firm and an...
Nabadwip Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Loke Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal212
1. These two appeals have arisen out of a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage by way of conditional sale and are from the preliminary and the final decrees passed therein. Defendants 6, 7, 8 and 11 are the appellants. Defendant 1 is the mortgagor. He executed the mortgage on 23rd June 1916. On the same day, after being duly signed and attested, the deed was presented for registration and the executant's admission was taken, but the registration was not complete till 27th June 1916, which is the date the certificate of registration bears. Defendant 26, having obtained a decree for money in Money Suit No. 153 of 1915 against defendant 1 on 18th May 1916, put it into execution, and on 20th June 1916 obtained an order for attachment in respect of eight out of the properties covered by the mortgage. Two out of these eight properties are concerned in this appeal. On 21st June 1916 the writ of attachment was signed and issued and made over to the peon. As regards the said two properties the pr...
In Re: Cook and Kelvey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal736,140Ind.Cas.57
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a reference has been made to this Court under Section 57, Stamp Act, by the Board of Revenue in this province. It appears that a certain document after it had been executed was brought to the Collector under Section 31, Stamp Act. It was brought with the view of having the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which the instrument was chargeable and it became and was the duty of the Collector to determine the duty with which in his judgment, the instrument was chargeable,' On 22nd July 1930 the Collector discharged his duty under Section 31 by making an order to the effect that the document was chargeable under Article 40, Clause (b) and giving his reason for holding that it did not come under Clause (c) of that article. He was also of opinion that the instrument was chargeable under Article 23 and that the total stamp duty to be charged was Rs. 16,983-12-0. This decision of the Collector was apparently somewhat disappointing to the subjects and they ...
Ramendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Balurghat Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal317
Rankin, C.J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is brought by plaintiff 2 from the decision of Patterson, J., who on second appeal dismissed the suit but granted leave to appeal. The trial Court had dismissed the suit but she learned Additional District Judge had decreed it. The plaintiff's sued the Balurghat Central Cooperative Bank, a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1912) for a declaration that a certain resolution passed on 20th June 1925 at a special general meeting of the Society was ultra vires and illegal and for an injunction to restrain the society from acting on it. The appellant was the holder of ten preference shares of Rs. 20 each and the effect of the resolution complained of which was worded in an obscure and unbusiness like way was that all preference shares were compulsorily taken from these holders at par value and vested in the society. This the society claimed to do by virtue of its Regulations.2. The object of the Society was to finance Co-o...
(Mallik) Ramlal Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal115
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Malik Ramlal who is stated to have on 4th February 1930 presented a petition in the Delhi Court for adjudication of the firm of Tulsidas Kissendayal and on whose petition the Delhi Court made an order of adjudication against these parties on 13th February 1930. At the time these proceedings were initiated and taken to completion the position was that the debtors had committed an act of insolvency under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act on 4th January, a petition in insolvency had been presented against them in Calcutta and this Court in Calcutta on 17th January had appointed the Official Assignee interim receiver of their assets in Calcutta, Delhi, Karachi and elsewhere. On 15th February, that is, two days after the date of the adjudication order of the Delhi Court, this Court made an adjudication order. In these circumstances, an application was made by the Official Assignee to the Delhi Court for an order under Section 36, Provincial Insolven...
Eusuf Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal190
Panckridge, J.1. In this case the appellant has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 193 and 471, I.P.C. In respect of the offence under Section 193 he has been sentenced to, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 471.2. It appears that the appellant was a defendant in a money suit before the third Additional Subordinate Judge of Noakhali. His defence was an allegation that the money in respect of which the suit was brought had been paid. He filed a written statement to that effect and he also filed in Court a certain document purporting to be a receipt granted by the plaintiff for the sum which, he alleged, had been paid by him. In due course the suit came on for hearing and the appellant gave oral evidence in which he reiterated that the money had been paid to the plaintiff in the plaintiff's shop. The learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the defendant's story and decreed the suit. Thereafter a complaint wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›