Kolkata Court December 1933 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.
Barisal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Benoy Bhusan Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal537
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Barisal Co-operative Central Bank Limited, the defendant in the suit brought by the plaintiffs Who seek for substitution of their names as members and holders of one hundred preference shares in the register of the defendant society in place of their deceased brother on declaration of their rights to be so substituted. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and hence the present appeal by the defendant society.2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts as they have been stated with sufficient fullness in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. Reference must however be made to the salient ones on which the questions of law, which are in controversy in the present appeal, really turn. It appears that some time in July 1913 an application was made by Mr. N. Gupta who was a well known barrister of this Court for 40 preference shares in the defendant bank on the terms of the Bye-laws of the said bank. The applic...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Rashmoni Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal506
ORDERCostello, J.1. This Rule was issued under the provisions of Section 27, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (11 of 1887), and is directed against a decision of a Judge of the Small Cause Court, Sealdah, dated 11th March 1933. One of the points that arise out of that judgment raises a question of considerable public importance. The suit in which the judgment was given was brought by a lady named Sm. Rashmoni Debi against the Corporation of Calcutta and was for recovery of compensation under the provisions of Section 303(2), Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, which is Bengal Act 3 of 1923. The plaintiff is the owner of certain premises known as No. 27 Halderpara Road, and on the front portion of those premises there is a small two storeyed house and the back portion of the premises consists of low lying land which was formerly occupied by a tank. In the month of January 1929 the plaintiff submitted to the Corporation of Calcutta a plan of a proposed new building which, according to the ca...
Enayet Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal557
Guha, J.1. The appellant in this case Enayet Ali, has been found guilty by a majority verdict of the jury, and has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dacca, Under Section 459, I. P. C, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The jury were divided in their verdict. Three of the jurors were of opinion that the appellant was guilty Under Section 459, I. P. C, while two of them came to be of opinion that the appellant was not guilty of the charge framed against him. The learned Judge's charge to the jury has been read to us; and a portion of the evidence bearing upon the material points adverted to by the learned Judge in his charge to the jury has also been placed before us by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant. It has been, in the first place sought to be made out that the facts of the case to which reference has been made by the learned Judge in his charge to the jury, do not constitute an offence under Section 459, I. P. C, and...
In Re: Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation,ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal563
Buckland, J.1. On an application made on behalf of Clyne Gordon Stewart Under Section 38, Companies Act, for the rectification of the register of the Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation Limited, Mr. Harcourt, who says that he is a director of the company, has claimed the right of audience on behalf of the company by virtue of a power-of-attorney executed in his favour by two persons, who, as directors of the company, have sealed it with the common seal of the company. The power-of-attorney nominates and constitutes F.L.Harcourt, a director of the company, to appear for and on behalf of the company, to conduct and represent the company in the proceedings in an application made by C.G.Stewart in the High Court and for the proper prosecution of the said proceedings to do all such acts and deeds as he may deem necessary and the company hereby agrees to ratify all his acts and deeds as made for and on behalf of the company.2. It has been objected on behalf of the applicant that this gentelma...
Lala Goverdhonedas Vs. Harish Chandra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal609,152Ind.Cas.198
Buckland, J.1. By his will one Lala Raghumull Khandelwal, who died on 5th September 1926, bequeathed to Sm. Chameli Debi, his brother's widow an annuity of Rs. 500 a month and a house at Delhi of the value of Rs. 20,000 and directed that certain sradh expenses should be met out of the general assets and the following sum to be spent therefor among others for the widow of Jaggumull, that is to say the legatee, Rs.5,000. Probate of the will was granted to the executor Lala Goverdhoned as on 10th January 1927. In the year 1929 a suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased was instituted in this Court and in that suit the Official Receiver was appointed on 16th June 1931. This was followed by an administration decree in the usual form on 2nd February 1932 and the usual accounts are now, we are informed, in the course of being taken. This is an application made in that suit by the executor of Sm. Chameli Debi, deceased, for an order that the Official Receiver be directed to pa...
Akhil Bandhu Guha and ors. Vs. Suradhuni Debya Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal377
Mukerji, J.1. The appellants held a prior mortgage (Ex. S) and two subsequent mortgages (Exs. R and T) in respect of Borne properties which are also covered by a mortgage (Ex. l) in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. There are some additional properties in Ex. 1 and Ex. T, but the matter is of no importance in this connexion. There were two mortgagors, of whom one having died, the other is now the sole respondent representing the entire interest of the mortgagors.2. The suit was for enforcement of the plaintiff's mortgage. The dues on all the four mortgages have been found by the Court below, which has made a decree in form 9, App. D, which is the form applicable to a decree in a suit by the first mortgagee against the mortgagor with the second mortgagee as a party. The Court has thus given the plaintiff relief on the basis of his being the first mortgagee and ignoring the appellant's mortgage (Ex. S), which, if it is taken into account, would make the plaintiff the second mortgagee a...
Atindra Narayan Roy Vs. Hemanta Kumari Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal606,152Ind.Cas.900
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the defendant Maharani Hemanta Kumari Devi calling upon Hirendra Nath Sanyal and Satyendra Nath Mazumdar to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court for causing to be printed for circulation the allegations made in the plaint in the suit, and, tor publishing an abstract or a copy of the said plaint.2. The respondent Sanyal is a relation of the plaintiff. The respondent Mazumdar is the editor of a Bengalee Newspaper called the 'Ananda Bazar Patrika.' This suit was filed on 7th July 1933, and the summons was served on 21st July. It appears that in the issue of the respondent Mazumdar's newspaper of 8th August 1933, the article, of which a complaint is now made, appeared. The respondent Mazumdar states that about 4th August 1933, the respondent Sanyal approached him and furnished him with a copy of the plaint and with what he describes as a summary for publication. He adds that the respondent Sanyal also asked for h...
Akhil Bandhu Guha Vs. Suradhuni Debya Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1084
Mukerjee, J.1. The appellants hold a prior mortgage (Ex. S) and two subsequent mortgages (Exs. R & T) in respect of some properties which are also covered by a mortgage (Ex. 1) in favour of the plaintiff respondent. There are some additional properties in Ex. 1 and Ex. T but the matter is of no importance in this connection. There were two mortgagors of whom one having died the other is now the sole respondent representing the entire interest of the mortgagors.2. The suit was for enforcement of the plaintiff's mortgage. The dues on all the four mortgages have been found by the Court below which has made a decree in Form No. 9 of App. D which is the Form applicable to a decree in a suit by the 1st mortgage against the mortgagor with the 2nd mortgagee as a party. The Court has thus given the plaintiff relief on the basis of his being the 1st mortgagee and ignoring the appellant's mortgage (Ex. 8) which if it is taken into account would make the plaintiff the 2nd mortgagee and would make ...
Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Erfan Karikar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal503
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued on the opposite parties 2 to 139, the tenants defendants, to show cause why a certain order of the Subordinate Judge, Pabna, dated 30th November 1932, should not be set aside. It appears that there was a suit for khas possession of about 400 bighas of land and for mesne profits. Some of the plaintiffs succeeded before the Subordinate Judge who made a decree for khas possession of the lands which they claimed and for mesne profits. With regard to the rest of the plaintiffs he held that their suit failed owing to some question of notice. The result was that there was an appeal to the High Court where it was decided that notice had been waived and that the rest of the plaintiffs were entitled to the property which they claimed and that otherwise the decree of the Subordinate Judge would stand. In passing it may be noted that the High Court decreed khas possession in favour of the second lot of plaintiffs, but seems to have forgotten to pa...
In Re: A, a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal242a
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case, a Rule was issued by virtue of the powers vested in the Court under 8. 12, Legal Practitioners Act (18 of 1879), calling upon A, a pleader, to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed from practice, on the ground that the fact that he had been convicted in two cases under Section 21 of Ordinance 2 of 1932 for disobeying the order of the District Magistrate of Rangpore, and had been sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and two years respectively, and that he bad been previously convicted in June 1930 under Section 188, I. P. C, implied a defect of character which unfitted him to be a pleader. One of the convictions in 1932 was set aside on appeal. This pleader therefore has been convicted twice, within the last three years, of what amounted to semi political offences. The conviction under Section 21 of Ordinance 2 of 1932 was for leaving the village where he had been ordered to reside. Such an order can only be made ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »