Kolkata Court January 1933 Judgments
E.V. Penheiro Vs. M. Minney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal655
Roy, J.1. This is an action under the Fatal Accidents Act (Act 13 of 1855). On 26th June 1933, at about 10 a.m., one Charles Penheiro, an assistant in Messrs. Liptons Limited was crossing Bentinck Street from west to east in order to reach Weston Street when he was knocked down by the defendant's motor car which was being driven from south to north along Bentinck Street by the defendant's driver, Charles Penheiro was seriously injured and died the same afternoon at the Medical College Hospital, death being due to fracture of the skull. On 4th August 1933, Mr. E. P. Swinhoe, a Solicitor, under instructions from Mrs. Charles Penheiro wrote to the defendant claiming Rupees 45,000 as loss and damages sustained by her by reason of her husband's death and threatening legal proceedings in default of payment. The claim was repudiated by Messrs. Orr, Dignam and Co., Solicitors, acting on behalf of the defendant, by their letter of 8th September 1933; but before that date and on 31st August 1933...
Tag this Judgment!Taraprasanna Ganguly and ors. Vs. Naresh Chandra Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal329
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holders and is directed against an order dismissing their application for execution of a money decree obtained in their favour. The circumstances which have led to the order appealed against may be briefly stated thus: The appellants instituted a suit against the Secretary, Ex-Officio President and the then members of the Madaripur Donovan Girls' School Committee, (who were all named in the plaint) for recovery of Rs. 5,728 due on bills on account of a contract entered into on 7th March 1925 between the appellants and the then school committee for the construction of the school premises. Various defences were taken in the suit amongst which it is necessary to notice only one, namely, that the suit was not maintainable as the personnel of the managing committee had changed since the date of the agreement. On 9th February 1931 the appellants' suit was decreed in part for Rs. 1,561-12-0 with interest Rs. 699-8-0 and costs and it was d...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Bakhtear and ors. Vs. Khandkar Altaf HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal581,145Ind.Cas.638
Jack, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why this Court should not set aside the dismissal on a preliminary point of the petitioner's application for an order on the opposite party to file accounts under S, 3, Mussalman Wakf Act 42 of 1923. The preliminary point raised was that Act 42 of 1923 is not applicable to this wakf inasmuch as it is a wakf of the nature described in Section 3, Wakf Validating Act 6 of 1913, and is thus excluded from the operation of Act 42 of 1923 by Section 2(e) of the Act. Some of the terms of the wakf are as follows: (1) as long as the founders live they shall appropriate one-third of the proceeds of the wakf properties themselves, and apply two-thirds to other charities; (2) after their death two-thirds of the proceeds of the wakf properties shall be enjoyed by their children and the remaining one-third should go to meet the charities; and (3) in the event of non-existence of any child begotten by the founders, such a person from ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaneekanta Laha Vs. Atulchandra Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal636,145Ind.Cas.836
Jack, J.1. This Rule has arisen out of an application by the petitioner for the transfer of certain land to them under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. This application was made on 17th November 1931. Subsequently, by an order of the Court, dated 9th January 1932, the petitioners added the other cosharer landlords, the opposite parties Nos. 5 to 20 in this application. Thereafter, these opposite parties entered appearance, refused to exercise their right of pre-emption and gave their consent to the purchase of the land by the petitioners. The learned Munsif rejected the petitioners' application on the ground that it was not maintainable, inasmuch as, at its inception, the application was not in form in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 188, Ben. Ten. Act. This order the petitioners seek to set aside.2. A notice was served on the landlords in this case on 17th September 1931, and it is admitted that the other cosharer landlords were not made parties within two months of th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharanidhar Roy Vs. P.D. Sethi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal379
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Burdwan affirming an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol by which he directed the attachment of a debt secured by a mortgage of immovable property in favour of the judgment-debtor. It appears that the Asansol Motor Engineering Ltd. obtained a decree against Dharanidhar Ray, a minor who was represented by his guardian ad litem Swarupini Devi and in execution of the said decree has attached a mortgage bond executed in favour of the judgment-debtor by Raja Bon Behari Singh. The attachment has been made according to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P.C., by a written order prohibiting the mortgagee, the judgment-debtor in this case, from recovering the mortgage debt and Raja Bon Behari Singh, the mortgagor, from making payment thereof until the further order of the Court. To this attachment the judgment-debtor through his mother, the guardian ad litem, takes exception and contends that as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Chandra Ghose Vs. JamaluddIn Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal621
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 3 and is directed against an order of remand made in a mortgage suit. It appears that a suit was brought in the Court of first instance for recovery of Rs. 999 on a mortgage executed on the 27th Aswin 1321 B. 8. said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of one Esmon Bibi, by her brother one Jamaluddin Mondal who is now plaintiff 1 in the suit. The suit was brought on the allegation that the mortgage money really belonged to him and not his sister Esmon and that Esmon was only his benamidar. The due date of mortgage was the end of Chaitra 1321 B.S. which date corresponded to 13th April 1915. The suit on the mortgage would ordinarily be barred on 14th April 1927. On 25th August 1927 after the period of limitation had expired Jamaluddin abandoned his case that Esmon was really a benamidar for him and asked for amendment of plaint alleging that he was one of the heirs of Esmon and as such he was entitled to sue on the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!NabIn Chandra Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Chakravarty and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal745
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which the plaintiffs instituted against the defendants for arrears of rent for ejectment and for mesne profits. On 17th Baisakh 1332 defendant's father sold some lands to the plaintiffs by a Kobala, and on the next day the 18th he took some of the lands so conveyed on a lease for one year by executing a kabuliyat. The period of the lease having expired, a notice to quit was served, and on the expiry of the period stated in it, the present suit was brought. The defence was that the kobala and the kabuliyat were meant to constitute a mortgage by way of conditional sale, that it was understood that the lease would be for 5 years while it was fraudulently obtained as for one year, that a part of the rent had been paid up and that no notice was served.2. The Munsif overruled all the defences and decreed the suit. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the Munsif's decision and dismissed the suit. He found that no fraud or trick such as was alle...
Tag this Judgment!Mahim Chandra Gope Vs. Sailendra Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal384,150Ind.Cas.529
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff's case was that their father, by inheritance and by joint purchases with his own brothers; i.e., defendants 2 and 3, had a 5 annas odd share in a certain taluk, that defendants 2 and 3 also, by inheritance and by joint purchases with the plaintiffs' father, had a 4 annas odd share therein, and that the plaintiffs' father thereafter made several separate purchases with his own funds in respect of a total share of 3 annas odd share of the taluk. Their case further was that although defendants 2 and 3 had thus only a 4 annas odd share as aforesaid, they mortgaged an 8 annas share to the father of defendant 1 and that the father of defendant 1 on the basis of the said mortgage obtained an exparte decree, got it made final, put the decree to execution and purchased the said 8 annas share, and after having obtained delivery of possession got his name registered in the Collectorate in respect of it. The plaintiffs' case was that they had been thus dispossessed from...
Tag this Judgment!Susarmoy Sen and anr. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal689,147Ind.Cas.449
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge of Howrah dated 6th October 1931 passed under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act (1930) by which he annulled a certain transfer in favour of the appellants in the present case. The learned Additional District Judge has come to the conclusion that so far as the passing of the consideration is concerned it has been established in this case. He has further found that deeds were executed for the purpose of paying certain previous mortgages executed so far back as the year 1922 which transactions the learned Judge found to be genuine and for consideration. The reason given by the learned Judge for annulling the transfer is that he is satisfied on the circumstances of this case that the transfer was not made in good faith and the only question which has been debated before us in this appeal is as to whether the circumstances which have been established in this case lead to the necessary inference that t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadambya Debya Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal407
Mallik, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal are briefly these: Defendants 1 and 3 are two brothers and defendant 2 is their mother. The father of defendants 1 and 3, who was the husband of defendant 2, left a will by which the whole of his properties vested in defendant 2. After his death defendant 2, the widow, managed for some time the properties, and thereafter defendant 1 managed the family affairs till May 1921, when he separated from his mother and the other brother. In the course of his management various loans were contracted. Some of the loans were taken by defendants 1 and 2 jointly and others were taken by defendant 1 alone. After the separation, two of the senior pleaders of the Pabna Bar were appointed arbitrators by defendants 1 and 2 to decide who, among the two defendants, was liable for the debts contracted. The arbitrators gave their award holding inter alia that defendant 2, that is to say, the mother, was liable for a debt of about Rs. 900 due...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »