Kolkata Court December 1933 Judgments
Mukundalal Ray Vs. Sudarshan Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal550
ORDERCostello, J.1. These two rules are directed against an order made by the Munsif of Munshiganj, dated 30th June 1933, whereby he rejected two applications made by the present petitioner, Mukundalal Ray of Nagarnandi, Under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act (8 of 1885), as amended by Act 4 passed by the Bengal Legislative Council in 1928. The applications were opposed by the opposite party in the present proceedings) Sudarshan Mukherji (who was the purchaser of the holdings to which the applications refer), on the ground that the applications were made beyond the limit of time provided for by the terms of Section 26-F. There was also a subsidiary ground that the applicant could have no relief without paying off the mortgage debts, which the purchaser had paid off after he had purchased the holdings in question. The applications were filed on 1st December 1932. One of the kabalas effecting the transfer of one of the holdings was dated 9th April 1932. The other kabala was not filed in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Shobharani Datta Vs. Santoshkumar Bakshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal633,152Ind.Cas.597
Lort.Williams, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Officiating Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, reversing a decision of the Munsif of Burdwan. The suit was for a declaration that a mortgage bond, alleged to have been executed by Panchukrishna Bakshi, who was the plaintiff's fourth brother, was a spurious and fabricated document; that there was no consideration for it, and that it was void. The bond purported to have been given on 10th Poush 1337, in favour of the defendant, Sreemati Shobharani Datta for a sum of Rs. 150, which, it was alleged, had been lent by this woman to Panchukrishna Panohukrishna died within two months of the alleged date of the bond and it was registered after his death.2. The plaintiff's allegation was that the alleged signatures of Panchukrishna on the bond did not tally with his admitted signatures on other documents and that consequently the document was a fabrication, and the allegation that this women lent Panohukrishna Rs. 150 upon it was u...
Tag this Judgment!Mukundalal Roy Vs. Sudarshan Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.658
ORDERCostello, J..1. These two rules are directed against an order made by the Munsif of Munshiganj, dated June 30, 1933, whereby he rejected two applications made by the present petitioner, Mukundalal Roy of Nagarnandi under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885, as amended by Act IV passed by the Bengal Legislative Council in 1928). The applications were opposed by the opposite party in the present proceedings, Sudarshan Mukherji (who was the purchaser of the holdings to which the applications refer), on the ground that the applications were made beyond the limit of time provided for by the terms of Section 26-F. There was also a subsidiary ground that the applicant could have no relief without paying off the mortgage debts, which the purchaser had paid off after he had purchased the holdings in question. The applications were filed on December 1, 1932. One of the kabalas effecting the transfer of one of the holdings was dated April 9, 1932. The other kabala was not filed in...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Subodh Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal498
ORDER1. The first two petitioners are pleaders practising in the Court of the Munsif at Sherpur and the third petitioner is a Talukdar and merchant of the Sherpur town. In connection with the First General Election of Commissioners of the Sherpur Municipality which was to be held under the Bengal Municipal Act (Bengal Act 15 of 1932) a committee consisting of the Chairman and two Commissioners was appointed under Section 21 of the Act. The said committee appointed the three petitioners as the Revising Authority Under Order 4 of the Orders issued under Notification No. 5717-M, dated 1st, December 1932, to revise the Preliminary Electoral Roll. The complainant, who is a ratepayer of the said Municipality instituted a complaint against the three petitioners and the three members of the committee on 21st January 1933 alleging that certain malpractices had been committed by them in regard to the revision of the Preliminary Electoral Roll. The deposit of Rs. 50 contemplated by Section 34, Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Heeralall Chakraburtty Vs. Sreemutty Mansha Moyee Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal520,152Ind.Cas.1073
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of a person who was appointed a guardian by the District Judge of Hooghly under the Guardians and Wards Act in respect of the person and property of a minor girl Manashamoyi. The minor was born in 1904. An application for guardianship was made by the appellant on 6th March 1924 and in the said application a prayer was made that the appellant be appointed guardian to the minor's estate as given in the schedule annexed to the petition. The Ka schedule properties consist of Government promissory notes of the face value of Rupees 7,000 and of market value of Rs. 4,200. Kha schedule properties consist of twenty-one items of ornaments the total value of which was put down at, Rs. 500. On 24th June 1924 the appellant Hiralal Chakravartty was appointed guardian and in May 1925 the minor girl attained majority.2. The allegation which had been made in these proceedings which were started by the minor after she had attained majority Under Section 41, Guard...
Tag this Judgment!MofijuddIn Muhuri Vs. Mofizuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal491
Lort Williams, J.1. This is a reference made by the Munsif of the Central Court, Comilla, under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P. C. None of the parties have appeared, but Mr. Abinash Ghose has very kindly and ably assisted the Court as amicus curiae. The case arose on an application made by mortgagees under Section 174(3), Ban. Ten. Act, as persons whose interests were affected by the sale of a holding for arrears of rent. The decree-holder was willing to allow the sale to be set aside on condition that the mortgagees paid to him the decretal amount. This they were unwilling to do, on the ground that proviso (b) to the subsection did not apply to them, because no amount was recoverable from them in execution of the decree.2. The questions which we are asked to decide are: (a) Whether an applicant, other than a judgment debtor, whose interests are affected by the sale must either deposit the amount recoverable in execution of the decree, or satisfy the Court, that no such deposit is necessary...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshchandra Shaha Vs. Anandachandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal564
Lort-Williams, J.1. The point raised on these two appeals is short and simple. Plaintiffs sued on mortgage bonds, which stipulated for payment of compound interest. The defendant's case was that, when he came to sign the bonds, he objected to this stipulation and refused to sign. Later, he was persuaded to sign, on plaintiffs promising not to enforce the stipulation. The District Judge held that such evidence was inadmissible and allowed the claim. No principle of law is clearer than that, when the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, no extrinsic evidence is admitted to con-tradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms. This principle is embodied in Section 92, Evidence Act. It is true that evidence may always be given, which tends to show that the document is invalid, such as evidence of fraud, error, or incapacity. This is stated in the first provision to the section. That is to say, a party may show by such evidence that his signature to a document w...
Tag this Judgment!indra Kumar Hazra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal500,152Ind.Cas.226
1. It seems to us that this case has been tried without a proper appreciation of the elements which are necessary to be established in order that the conviction of the accused can be justified. The entries according to the prosecution were false entries wilfully made by the accused who was the Gomasta of the complainant's firm. The accused's defence was that the entries were merely in the nature of adjustment entries, that the accused's father Benode Behari Bazra was a partner of the complainant's firm and that the entries were made in the books of the complainant's firm under the direction and authority of the partners who constituted that firm. One of the points therefore which the learned Magistrate had to determine was whether the case which the accused set up, namely, that his father was a partner in the complainant's firm was made out or not was not clearly proved, the conviction should be set aside. On that point, there is no finding at all in the judgment of the learned Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kanta Pal Vs. Benode Behari Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal444
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bakargunge, dated 2nd June 1933, by which he appointed defendant 2 as receiver in a suit commenced by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership. The writ which was issued in pursuance of the order appointing the receiver is in the following terms:Whereas it has bean found necessary that a receiver should be appointed in this case for the proper management of the Firms mentioned in the schedule below, you are hereby appointed receiver of the said property under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil P. C., 1908, with full powers under the provisions of that order.2. We shall have to say something hereafter with regard- to- the form of the writ which was issued on the receiver. The plaintiff made an application for the appointment of a receiver on 3rd} May 1933 having filed his plaint on 10th April 1933. The Subordinate Judge was' of opinion that a case had been made out for the appointment of a receiver and...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdit Mall Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal546
Costello, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment, given by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, in connexion with two cases brought against the present appellant Ramdit Mall. In those cases the appellant was charged, Under Section 22 and Under Section 35, Factories Act, 1911. Section 22 provides for a weekly holiday of persons employed in factories and it enacts that:No person shall be employed in any factory on a Sunday, unless: (a) he has had, or will have, a holiday for a whole day on one of the three days immediately preceding or succeeding the Sunday, and (b) the manager of the factory has previous to the Sunday or the substituted day, whichever is earlier, given notice to the inspector of his intention so to employ the said person and of the day which is to be substituted, and has at the same time affixed a notice to the same effect in the place mentioned in Section 36that place being some conspicuous place near the main entrance of the factory, Section 35 provides:In every f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »