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.
Brijlal Ganeriwalla Vs. Gireendrashekhar Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal543
Buckland, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, for an order that the memorandum of appeal, which has been tendered and rejected on the ground that it is out of time, be filed, and, in the alternative, that, if necessary, the time for filing the memorandum of appeal be extended. The time, within which an appeal has to be filed from this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, is 20 days from the date of the judgment or order appealed against, as is wellknown, and the question which arises in this case is whether the appellants are within time, having regard to the terms of Section 12(2), Lim. Act.2. The circumstances and relevant dates are as follows: Shortly before the suit came on for hearing and on 15th June 1933, an order for amendment of the plaint was made and, on the same day, the requisition to have the order completed was filed. On 16th June, that order was settled and passed. Nothing remained to be done but to make and verify the ...
In Re: Moulvi Abu HossaIn Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.57
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a rule was issued by virtue of the powers vested in the Court under Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879), calling upon Moulvi Abu Hossain Sarkar, 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 II of 1932, for disobeying the order of the District Magistrate of Rungpur, and had been sentenced there under to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and two years respectively, and that he had been previously convicted in June, 1930, under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, implied a defect of character which unfitted him to be a Pleader.2. One of the convictions in 1932 was set a side 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 of 1932 was for leaving the village where he h...
Benoda Charan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Ramani Kishore Chakravarti and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal488
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for partition on establishment of the plaintiff's four annas right, title and interest in the Niskar lands described in the plaint. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed property appertains to No. 362 Kharija Taluk Harinarain Chakravarti which was partitioned by the Collector, but that the permanent Niskar tenure Utsarga Raghudeb Chakravarty was left common and undivided and is covered by partition Chitta Dags Nos. 63, 65, 66 and 67 of the year 1899 in which the plaintiff had four annas share and the defendants 12 annas share and it is in respect of these plots that the plaintiff seeks partition on establishment of his title. The plaintiff claims partition of the plots which are covered by nine cadastral survey plots of which four were recorded as appertaining to Niskar Raghudeb Chakravarty in the settlement survey namely, plots Nos. 244, 279/1029, 245 and 246 and the rest as appertaining to the other taluks. Defendants 1, 13 and 14 w...
Secy. of State Vs. Messrs Fakir Mohammad Wazir Mohammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal508
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,500 as damages for non-delivery of a consignment of 150 baskets of grapes booked by defendant 4 Habibulla at Chaman Station on the North Western Railway under P.W. Bill No. 77033, dated 19th October 1926, in refrigerator van No. 2777 for delivery to the plaintiffs at Howrah Station on the East Indian Railway. The delivery of the consignment not having been obtained by the plaintiffs, they after communication with the Railways concerned instituted the present suit on the last day of limitation provided by the Code. The suit in effect was against two Railway Companies, the East Indian Railway and the North Western Railway. The suit as against the East Indian Railway was dismissed and the suit as against the North Western Railway administration was decreed in part by the trial Court for the sum of Rs. 3,870. That judgment and decree have been affirmed in appeal by the Second Additional Judge of Howrah. The North Weste...
Tarini Mohan De Sarkar and anr. Vs. Dwarak Nath Banikya Poddar and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal556,150Ind.Cas.600
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a Reference Under Section 438, Criminal P. C, made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymen-singh, in the matter of a proceeding Under Section 147, Criminal P. C, recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tangail in the said proceeding so far as it directed the second party to remove a part of the tin chapra in question, should be set aside. The recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge is supported by the words of Sub-section (2), Section 147, Criminal P. C, which runs as follows:If it appears to such Magistrate that such right exists, he may make an order prohibiting any interference with the exercise of such right.2. The words used in the sub-section contemplate only a prohibitory order and not a mandatory order to do some positive act. This interpretation of the section is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Hari Mati Dasi v. Hari Dasi Dasi : AIR1925Cal991 in which the reasoning in support of the said interpretati...
Jagganath Addy Vs. Khetra Pal Bhattacharjie and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal711,152Ind.Cas.560
Buckland, J.1. The plaintiff sues in this case to recover the sum of Rs. 2,369-6-0 for principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 16th July 1931 executed by the defendant Khetra Pal Bhattacharjie in his favour. In addition to Khetra Pal Bhattacharjie, he also sues Rai Bahadur Manindra Nath. Bhattacharjie, the father of Khetra Pal Bhattacharjie as guarantor. The defendant Khetra Pal Bhattacharjie has not put in any defence or appeared at the hearing. There will be a decree against him for the sum claimed with costs and interest on judgment at six per cent. The defendant Rai Bahadur Manindra Nath Bhattacharjie denies the guarantee and that in substance is the only issue in the case. The plaintiff's story in reference to the defendant Manindra Hath Bhattacharjie is that on 31st October 1932, Khetra Pal took him to his father who wanted to look at the promissory notes. He looked at them and said ' Don't bring a suit against my son. I will pay you your money' and asked the pla...
Prem Chand Mullik Vs. Nilmony Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal529
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, Under Section 102, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, for an offence of borrowing a sum of money from the complainant in the case, on the mortgage of some land with the knowledge that he, the accused person, was an undischarged insolvent and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. It appears that the petitioner obtained an order of adjudication as an insolvent in an insolvency proceeding in this Court, declaring him an insolvent on 20th April 1921 and that since that order of adjudication was passed by this Court, the Official Assignee did not take possession of any asset of the petitioner. It further appears that on 23rd November 1923, the petitioner purchased property from one Ratindra Lal Mitter for a sum of Rs. 6,000 and that on 7th June 1924, the petitioner executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the complainant Nilmony Das and obtained the loan hypothecatin...
Surendranath Sen Vs. Municipal Commissioners, Mymensingh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal673
ORDERMallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that an assessment made by the Municipality of Mymensingh on the plaintiff's holding is illegal and ultra vires. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are briefly these: In the Municipality of Mymensingh there was up to the year 1928 no tax on holdings but what is known as tax on persons. The Municipal Commissioners decided by a resolution that with effect from 1st April 1929 there should be a charge and that taxation from that date would be not on persons but on holdings, and in order to give effect to that resolution they made an assessment on all the holdings after making Valuations of the same. The plaintiff's holding was taxed on the basis that the annual letting value of the same was Rs. 3,000. This figure, however, on the objection of the plaintiff, was reduced to Rs. 1,800. Before the Commissioners decided to levy tax on holdings they had, in the year 1928 levied a water-rate on holdings ...
Surendra Nath Sen Vs. Municipal Commissioners
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.694
Malllk, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that an assessment made by the Municipality of Mymensingh on the plaintiff's holding is illegal and ultra vires. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are briefly these: In the Municipality of Mymensingh there was up to the year 1928 no tax on holdings but what is known as tax on persons. The Municipal Commissioners decided by a resolution that with effect, from April 1, 1929, there should be a charge and that taxation from that date would be not on persons but on holdings and in order to give effect to that resolution they made an assessment on all the holdings after making valuations of the same. The plaintiff's holding was taxed on the basis that the annual letting value of the same was Rs. 3,000. This figure, however, on the objection of the plaintiff, was reduced to Rs. 1,800. Before the Commissioners decided to levy tax on holdings they had, in the year 1928, levied a water rate on holdings with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›