Kolkata Court June 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.
Mano Mohan Neogy Vs. Surendra Kumar Ray Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal52
Guha, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents in this appeal instituted a suit in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca, Suit No. 263 of 1924, for dissolution of partnership and for accounts, for partition of immovable properties, as also for ancillary and incidental reliefs. There was a prayer for appointment of a receiver in the suit. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit, and two persons were appointed joint receivers, by an order dated 3rd September 1928. The receivers so appointed took possession of the properties in suit, and were in charge of the management of the same. On 15th May 1931, defendants 5 to 21 made an application for the removal of the joint receivers appointed by the Court, and for the appointment of a competent and efficient receiver or manager, on a modest scale of remuneration or on a fixed salary, so as to reduce the cost of management, and effect economy. It appears that the pleaders appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants, other than de...
Kali Charan Singha Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal85
Costello, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif of Rampurhat, dated 17th March 1932. For the purpose of making it clear how that order came into existence, it is necessary to recite certain facts. The present petitioner, Kali Charan Singha, on 6th December 1923, obtained decrees in his favour in eighteen suits which he had brought against a lady named Kiranbala and another lady named Bindubashini. A number of different bargadars holding under them were also defendants in the suits. The suits were for the recovery of khas possession and mesne profits, in respect of a two-thirds share in certain properties, the plaintiff's right to that two-thirds share having already been established in antecedent litigation. It is to be observed that in those eighteen suits both Kiranbala and Bindubasini appeared and made various defences to the plaintiff's claim. The decrees having been made in favour of the plaintiff the defendants appealed and ultimately the matters in issue betw...
Reckitt, in Re; Reckitt Vs. Reckitt.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR1(Cal)
LORD HANWORTH, M.R. - In this case we have an appeal from Eve, J., who of the testator was a direction to pay free, not only of Income-tax, but also of what is now known as sur-tax. The will that we have to consider is that of Sir Harold James Reckitt, and it was made on November 12, 1924. His death took place on December 29, 1930. In clause 12 of his will his words were as follows : 'I bequeath to my trustees the sum of Pound 200,000 upon trust to invest the same in any of the investments hereinafter authorised and to hold the said investments upon trust thereout to pay my wife during her life the annual sum of Pound 5,000 free in income-tax'. There are no further directions that are relevant. There is no direction to pay in quarterly payments, or equal quarterly payments, the words 'pay my wife during her life the annual sum of Pound 5,000 free of income-tax.' Eve, J., has held that that freedom so prescribed included freedom from sur-tax as well as income-tax. Counsel for the appell...
Sarba Mohan Banerjee Vs. Manmohan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal488
1. In this appeal which the plaintiff has preferred from a decree and decision by which the Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca has almost entirely dismissed his suit, two questions have been raised. The plaintiff is the eldest son of one Haramohan Banerji by his predeceased wife. Defendants 1 to 3 are Haramohan's sons by his second wife Kulakmini who is defendant 4. The plaintiff prayed for partition of certain immovable properties, to wit, two houses and some moveables of the value of Rs. 696. The Subordinate Judge held that the two houses had been made a gift of by Haramohan in favour of his wife defendant 4, and that as regards the moveables the plaintiff had failed to make out his case. He accordingly dismissed the suit for partition and gave a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 10-8-0 on the defendants' admission that there was an old iron safe of the value of Rs. 42 in existence as the only item of joint family moveable property. The two questions raised relate to: 1st the validi...
Sarbamohan Banerjee Vs. Monomohan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.757
1. In this appeal which the plaintiff has preferred from a decree and a decision by which the Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca has almost entirely dismissed his suit, two questions have been raised. The plaintiff is the eldest son of one Hara Mohan Banerjee by his predeceased wife. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are Hara Mohan's sons by Kulakamini (second wife) who is defendant No. 4. The plaintiff prayed for partition of certain immovable properties, to wit, two houses and some movables of the value of Rs. 5,695. The Subordinate Judge held that the two houses had been made a gift of by Hara Mohan in favour of his wife, defendant No. 4 and that as regards the movables the plaintiff had failed to make out his case. He accordingly dismissed the suit for partition and gave a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 10-8 only on the defendants admission that there was an old iron safe a of the value or Rs. 42 in existence as the only item of joint family movable property. The two questions raised ...
Nilmoni Pal Vs. Dakshineswar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal713
1. This is an appeal from a decree which was based upon an award which the Court had modified. It is not suggested that the decree is in excess of the award as modified, but the grounds taken in the appeal are directed against the order by which the modification was made. In our judgment Schedule 2, para. 16, sub-para. (2) bars the appeal. Apart from the provision contained in sub-para. (1), para. 16, which says;the Court shall proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award,' there is no other provision under which judgment may be pronounced on a modified award. The judgment in the present case therefore must have been pronounced under sub-para. (1), and consequently sub-para. (2) applies. The appeal therefore cannot be maintained. But the special facts of this case are that an appeal had been presented in the Court of the District Judge, from the order modifying the award, such an appeal being permissible under Section 104 (1) (c) of the Code. An attempt was made to get that app...
Ram Dass Goswami Vs. Sudha Krishna Laik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal343
Guha, J.1. The respondent in this appeal as a landlord succeeded in obtaining an ox parte decree in the Rent Suit No. 956 of 1929 in the Court of the Munsif at Asansole, against his tenants, the defendants in the suit, for a sum of Rs. 422-1-9, with costs and interest. After the ex parte decree was passed the tenants, the defendants in the suit for rent, filed an application under Section 153(a), 'Ben. Ten. Act, for an order to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them. The application so made by the tenants, was, in due course, admitted and registered, on the appellant before us standing surety on behalf of the tenants defendants, against whom the decree for rent was passed. The application was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution. The decree-holder landlord, the respondent in this appeal, thereupon filed an application for execution of his decree, by means of attachment of moveables, and in the alternative by arrest. So far as this application for execution was concer...
Nilmoni Pal Vs. Dakshineswar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.848
1. This is an appeal from a decree which was based upon an award which the court had modified. It is not suggested that the decree is in excess of the award as modified, but the grounds taken in the appeal are directed against the order by which the modification was made.2. In our judgment Schedule II, para. 16, sub-para. (2) bars the appeal Apart from the provision contained in sub para. (1) of para. 16, which says, 'the court shall proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award', there is no other provision under which judgment may be pronouncsd on a modified award. The judgment in the present case, therefore, must have been pronounced under sub para. (1), and consequently sub para. (2) applies. The appeal therefore cannot be maiutained.3. But the special facts of this case are that an appeal had been presented in the court of the District Judge, from the order modifying the award, such an appeal being permissible under Section 104(1)(c) of the Code. An attempt was made to get ...
In Re: janasakti of Sylhet and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal649
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by one Bidhuranjan Chakravarti, the publisher of the Janasakti' a Bengali Weekly newspaper published in Sylhet, asking the Court to set aside an order made by the Government of Assam on 26th February 1932, directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000 as security. Under Section 7 (3), Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 (Act 23 of 1931), whenever it appears to the Local Government that a, newspaper, in respect of which security under the provisions of the Act has not been required, contains any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4. Sub-section (1), the Local Government may require the publisher to deposit security.2. Under Section 23(1) the publisher may apply to the High Court to set aside the order, and the High Court shall decide if the newspaper, in respect of which the order was made, did or did not contain any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4, Sub-section (1). U...
Harendra Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Nanda Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal98
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which these two appeals have arisen, prayed for a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale said to have been entered into by defendants 1 to 5 on 3rd Chaitra 1330 B.S. or in the alternative for refund of earnest money and recovery of damages. Defendants 2 to 5 had maliki right in the property which was the subject matter of the contract for sale, to the extent of certain definite shares owned by each of them as a member of a joint Hindu family; defendant l had a meadi ijara right in the property to the extent of the share of defendant 3. Defendant 6 was the karta of the joint family of which defendants 1 to 5 were members, defendant 1 being the mother of defendants 2 to 5. Defendant 7 was an officer of the joint family, estate. Defendants 6 and 7 acted as agents in the matter of the contract for sale, of which specific performance was prayed for by the plaintiff, Defendants 8 to 13 are purchasers from defendants 1 to 5, by kabalas dated...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »