Kolkata Court April 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.
Sarat Kumar Banerji Vs. Munshi Abdul Bary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal49
Costello, J.1. This was a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of certain lands mentioned in the plaint. I need not for the purpose of our decision specify the lands in detail, but put quite shortly the position was that there was an occupancy raiyati standing in the names of two persons, Golapdi Mallik and Abdul Sattar, at a jama of Rs. 36-3as-17gds. That was a non-transferable occupancy holding. It was mortgaged by way of conditional sale and the mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It is conceded that the mortgage was of the whole of the property in question. The plaintiff in the suit was the landlord Sarat Kumar Banerjee and he is the appellant before us. The respondent in this appeal, Munshi Abdul Bari, was the principal defendant in the suit and he was the mortgagee. The other defendants in the suit were the tenants who were the mortgagors.2. It appears that the present plaintiff brought a suit against the tenants for recovery of rent. In that suit he obt...
Gobardhandas and anr. Vs. Gopaldas Modi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal286
Rankin, C.J.1. Two appeals are before us-Nos. 22 and 24 of 1932. They are brought respectively by Lala Gobardhandas and Lala Dinanath, two persons, who, with other three, are the executors of the will of one Raghumull Khandelwal, who died on 5th September 1926, probate being taken of his will on 10th January 1927. Raghumall appears to have died a wealthy man and, by the provisions of his will, he, first of all, directed that the residue of his property should go to certain persons. The two appellants before us were his nephews and they were to get an equal one-fourth share, his wife was to get another and his daughter, married to one Hansraj, was to get another. They were to be entitled to carry on the business in equal shares and were to be entitled to the goodwill and so forth in equal shares, There were various legacies and five persons were appointed executors and trustees-the two appellants, Hansraj, who had married his daughter, one Gopaldas Modi, who afterwards became the plaint...
Nagendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal683
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of Kishoreganj by which he has committed the petitioner Nagendra Nath Sircar to the Court of Sessions for trial on charges under Sections 19 (f) and 20, Arms Act. What happened in the case was this : the petitioner was put on his trial under these sections before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate convicted him under both the sections and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 20 but passed no sentence under Section 19 (f). The matter was then taken in appeal to the Sessions Judge and the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 20 on the ground that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the accused under that section. The learned Judge however set the petitioner at liberty observing in the concluding portion of his judgment that if the Magistrate wished to proceed further in the matter he might commit th...
Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Ranjan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal63
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal. The applicant was a workman engaged by one Kamil Sardar to do the work of putting up certain joists in a building in Park Street. Kamil Sardar was employed as a contractor by the Karnani Industrial Bank. It appears that the Karnani Industrial Bank was causing this house to be put up and it was getting the house put up by contracting with different people to do different parts of this work. It had evidently not entered into a contract with one builder to do the whole work, but it entered into contracts with particular persons employed in that behalf that particular parts of the work should be done on behalf of the bank. In these circumstances, the applicant having met with an injury by a joist falling on his leg, the commissioner has fixed the compensation at a lump sum of Rs. 514. Originally, the application was brought against Rai Bahadur Sukhlal Karnani personally but, in view of t...
Pradyumnakumar Mallik Vs. Gopendra Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal251
Rankin, C.J.1. This suit was brought, on 26th July 1921, by two persons of the name of Ray-mortgagees under an English mortgage, dated 13th February 1920 against two sets of defendants-against a first set as mortgagors and against a second set as puisne mortgagees. The suit was an ordinary suit for the enforcement of the mortgage. On 18th August 1921 a receiver of the mortgaged property was appointed; on 12th April 1922 a preliminary mortgage decree for sale was passed in the usual form. It was a decree under Rule 4, Order 34, Civil P.C.2. The usual form of mortgage decree on the original side of this Court is not literally and exactly in conformity with Form No. 4, Appendix D, Sch. 1 of the Code, which has reference to Clause (b), Rule 2, Order 34, It is usually necessary to direct the taking of accounts as contemplated by Clause (a) of that rule. In the present case, apart from directions given for the benefit of the puisne mortgagees, the preliminary decree directed accounts to be t...
Central Co-operative Stores Ltd. Vs. Santinidhan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal631,145Ind.Cas.834
1. These are three appeals which are directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri, dated 23rd May 1931, passed in certain proceedings arising out of execution of orders purporting to have been made under Section 42, Clauses (b) and (d), Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1912). The application was made at the instance of the liquidator who was appointed under Sub-section (1), Section 42. Amongst objections to the execution of these orders the principal objection taken was that the orders which were sought to be executed in these three proceedings out of which the three appeals arise were not orders made under Section 42, Clauses (b) and (d) of the Act. The order which was filed was the order dated 26th March 1930, in which it is recited that previous orders had been made on 18th February 1929, assessing contributions on all share-holders to the fullest extent of their respective liabilities under Section 42(2), Clause (b), Act 11 of 1912, and this order of 26th Marc...
Kiron Soshi Dasi Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal246
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the defendant, a lady of the name of Kiron Soshi Dasi, appeals from a decision of my learned brother Buckland, J., in a suit brought against her by the Official Assignee of Calcutta for possession of premises No. 10, Sonagachi Lane, in the town of Calcutta together with mesne profits. On 25th February 1896, it appears that a woman of the name of Bhuban Mohini Dasi executed a deed of gift of the property in suit in favour of two persons, Gora Chand Dhur and Gour Mohan Dhur, sons of one Kunja Behari Dhur and these persons on 14th March 1912 granted a mortgage of that property in favour of one Maharaj Kishore Khanna. In July 1914, Khanna instituted a mortgage suit against Gora Chand and Gour Mohan which resulted in a final decree being passed in 1916 and a sale of the property in execution of the decree took place on 10th August 1918. On the day of this sale, Bhuban Mohini not only protested to the Registrar that the property still remained in her and that the ...
Keshab Rai Jieu Thakur Vs. Jyoti Prosad Singha Deo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal783
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Bankura dated 4th June 1930, by which he dismissed the application of the appellant for substitution. This order of 4th June is divisible 'into two parts : (1) by which the application for substitution was rejected and (2) by which the appeal before the District Judge was dismissed. It is to be noticed that the present appeal is directed only against that portion of the order which rejected the appellant's application for substitution as will appear from the memorandum of appeal at p. 25 of the paper book.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal by the learned advocate for the respondents. In order to consider the soundness or otherwise of this preliminary objection it is necessary to state a few facts. It appears that the suit was instituted by the deity Sri Sri Iswar Keshab Rai Jiu Thakur through the Mahunt and Shebait Hri Sri Raja Gopal Acharjya Goswami for declaration of the title of the lakh...
Nabani Nath Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal147
Mallik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. It has arisen in this way: One Nabani Nath Mukerji brought a case of cheating under Section 417, I.P. C, against Prafulla Chandra Ghose. Nabani's brother Aparnath Mukherji was a witness for Nabani. The case against Prafulla ended in acquittal. The trying Magistrate thereupon called upon Nabani and Aparnath to show cause why they should not bo proceeded against under Section 211, I.P. C, and when they showed cause the Magistrate, after considering the cause shown by them, decided to make a complaint under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Nabani and Aparnath thereupon came up to this Court and filed the present appeal. The hearing of the appeal was stayed in view of the fact that Nabani had filed a civil suit in the Calcutta Small Cause Court relating to the facts on which he had instituted the criminal case of cheating. The civil suit has ended in the dismissal of Nabani's case.2. The order made by the learned Magistrate under ...
Sri Sri Keshab Rai Jieu Thakur Vs. Raja Jyoti Prosad Singhadeo and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: 139Ind.Cas.123
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Bankura dated the 4th June, 1930, by which he dismissed the application of the appellant for substitution. This order of the 4th June is divisible into two parts, (1) by which the application for substitution was rejected and (2) by which the appeal before the District Judge was dismissed. It is to be noticed that the present appeal is directed only against that portion of the order which rejected the appellant's application for substitution as will appear from the memorandum of appeal at page 25 of the Paper Book.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal by the learned Advocate for the respondents. In order to consider the soundness or otherwise of this preliminary objection it is necessary to state a few facts. It appears that the suit was instituted by the deity Sri Sri Iswar Keshab Rai Jiu Thakur through the Mohunt and Shebait Sri Sri Raja Gopal Achariya Goswami for declaration of the title of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »