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.
Abdul Khalef Molla and ors. Vs. Bama Charan Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal773,140Ind.Cas.586
1. The facts involved in this rule shortly stated are as follows: If; appears that there was a suit instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore being Title Suit No. 459 of 1926 by the petitioners as plaintiffs against no less than 113 persons who were made parties defendants. Out of these defendants, 1 to 102 are described as principal defendants and the rest are described as pro forma defendants. It appears further that 56 persons contested the suit by filing written statements and the rest did not appear and contest the suit although it was alleged that summons were served upon all the defendants. On 29th August 1928 the learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that they were entitled to recover khas possession of the lands in suit by evicting all the defendants, inasmuch as they were found to be trespassers. Against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge 45 of the defendants preferred an appeal to the Court of ...
Ahidhar Ghose Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal335
ORDER1. In view of the precedent which the office has referred to in its note dated 6th April 1932, this petition is sent to the Privy Council Department so that it may be placed before the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and taking Privy Council matters.2. [The matter then came up for hearing before Rankin, C.J. and Costello, J., who passed the final order by amending the decree as prayed for in the petition.]3. Final order.--Let the decree of this Court be amended by correcting the mistake as prayed for in the petition....
Golam Rahaman Khan and ors. Vs. Kali Pada Manna and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal864
Mallik, J.1. These two Rules were heard together. They arise out of two proceedings drawn up under Section 107, Criminal P. C. What happened in the case was this : On a report of the police against a number of persons, two proceedings were started by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Uluberia under Section 107, Criminal P. C. The cases bow-ever were transferred from Uluberia to Howrah Sudder by the District Magistrate of that place and the District Magistrate then transferred the two oases to Mr. Barua, a Deputy Magistrate exercising first class powers and stationed at Howrah. In the proceedings which had been drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Uluberia, the petitioners had not been included in the list of persons against whom the proceedings were drawn up. Mr. Barua however after going through the police report was of opinion that those men also should have been included in the proceedings and thereupon he (Mr. Barua) drew up fresh proceedings against a number of men including...
Hiralal Murarka and ors. Vs. Mangtulal Bagaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal208
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we have followed with the greatest care the argument of the learned Advocate-General who appears for the plaintiff-respondent and the point before us seems to be a very narrow one. The position however is that in my judgment the appeal should succeed. The plaintiff brings his suit for certain royalties due to the estate of one Popat Velji Rajdeo upon the terms of a mining lease. The plaintiff claims to be for this purpose entitled to represent that estate under an order dated 11th March 1927, which was an order made in an administration suit. In that suit, the heirs and the widows of the deceased were litigating as to the succession and the Court was asked for a more or less full order for administration of the estate of the deceased. The order in question of 11th March 1927, appointed the present plaintiff Mangtulal to be the Manager and it is in that capacity that he claims to be entitled to recover from the defendants whatever sums are due to Popat Velji ...
Jia Bai Vs. Joharmull Bothra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal858
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff applied for execution upon a tabular statement in respect of two sums of money--first of all, in respect of a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of Rs. 2,500 allowed to her by the decree of Buckland, J., dated 23rd May 1929, in the suit; between the parties; and secondly, for Rs. 534-11-6-- the amount of costs awarded to her upon an application by her that the bond which the respondent Joharmull Bothra had given as surety should be assigned to her (plaintiff) for enforcement. The learned Judge has not in any way dealt with the question of the sum of Rupees 534-11-6. He has dealt in his judgment only with the question of Rs. 2,500.2. The position is this: The plaintiff, one Jia Bai, a lady who claims to have recently attained majority brought a suit being Suit No. 1688 of 1927 in this High Court against two defendant firms. Her case was that during her minority her father had deposited certain sums of money on her account at 9 per cent par annum interest with...
Asia Khatun and ors. Vs. Nurjahan Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal39
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Backergunj dated 10th October 1931 by which he refused to set aside the sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The questions of law which fall for determination in this appeal depend on facts which have not been seriously disputed before us and which may be briefly stated. It appears that the respondents Nurjahan Khatun and others obtained a mortgage decree against the appellants Asia Khatun and others for a sum of Rs. 10,830-10-6 sometimes in the year 1928 and in execution of the said decree purchased the properties which formed the subject of the mortgage on 19th February 1930. On 19th March 1930 judgment-debtors 2 to 7 made an application to have the sale in execution set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., and they deposited the decretal money with compensation. On 24th March following notices were issued on the mortgagees decree-holders and judgment-debtor 1 to show cause why t...
B.S. Corbet and ors. Vs. Sonaulla Basunia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal150
Mallik, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Rangpur. It arises out of a proceeding under Section 133, Criminal P.C. It appears that one Sonaulla Basunia purchased some brickfield land which was low-lying and into which surplus rain water from neighbouring lands used to flow during the rains. It appears also that Sonaulla has now raised the level of that low-lying land of his with the result, that it has prevented the flow of surplus rain water from the adjoining lands causing an overflow into other lands. The learned Judge has recommended that the proceeding should be cancelled on the ground that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal under Section 133, Criminal P.C., with the present case.2. The reference, which is not opposed before us, should in my opinion, be accepted. The facts of the present case seem to he on all fours with the facts of the case in Jagarnath Sahu v. Parmeswar Narain AIR 1914 All 213, where it was held that in a case like...
Akhoy Kumar Sur Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal183
1. These three appeals have been preferred by one Akhoy Kumar Sur, who is said to be the owner of three bustee lands situate in Nos. 11, 12 and 43 Old Ballygunge 1st Lane, against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah, by which he dismissed the appellant's objection regarding the assessment of the bustee lands. The appeals are preferred to this Court under the provisions of Section 142, Clause (3), Calcutta Municipal Act (3 of 1923). The contention which has been put forward in, appeal before us is that the appellant is not the owner of the bustee, but that the real owners of the bustee are certain tenants to whom he has sublet the premises in question. As they pay very small rents to him the result of the assessment in these cases has been that he (the appellant) has to pay more to the Corporation by way of assessment than he gets from his tenants. It seems however that in no stage of the proceedings before this the appellant in these three appeals ever discriminated bet...
Miss Pramila Gupta Vs. W.S. Hopkyns and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal470
Panckridge, J.1. On 15th March last a petition was presented to us on behalf of Miss Pramila Gupta and Miss Sushila Das Gupta. The material allegations in the petition are that the petitioners are cousins and third year students of the Bethune College, that on 9th February last the house in which the petitioners both live were searched by the police in connexion with the attempt made on 6th February on the life of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal and the petitioners were arrested, that on 10th February and several subsequent dates they were brought before the Chief Presidency Magistrate and remanded to custody and finally discharged on 29th February, that on the passing of the order of discharge a Police Inspector named F. N. Sen immediately re-arrested the petitioners declaring that he did so under 'the Bengal (Emergency) Ordinance' that the petitioner Miss Pramila Gupta is now interned in the Presidency Jail and the petitioner Miss Sushila Das Gupta is now interned in the Distri...
Dharnidhar Singha Roy and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Giri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal705,140Ind.Cas.140
Panckridge, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by certain of the plaintiffs in Suit No.28 of 1922 in the Court of the District Judge of Hooghly calling on the defendant and three other persons to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court on account of the acts charged in the petition and in the affidavits annexed thereto. The proceedings are taken under the Contempt of Courts Act 1926, Section 2 (1) of which confers upon the High Courts the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to them as they have and exercise in respect of contempts of themselves. The suit was instituted under Section 92, Civil P. C., with the sanction of the Collector of Hooghly under Section 93, Civil P. C., for the removal of the defendant from his position as Mahant of the Tarakeswar mutt and for the framing of a scheme for the management of the mutt. Among the properties in suit are an estate c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »