Kolkata Court February 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.
K.C. Dhar Vs. Ahmad Bux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal735
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiff in December 1926 delivered to the British India Steam Navigation Company at a jetty on the river Hooghly 194 bundles of iron to be shipped by the company's steamship 'Warroonga' from Calcutta to Akyab. The goods having been delivered to jetty No. 1, the usual place, at which goods for such shipment were received by the shipping company or its agents, Messrs. Mackinnon Mackenzie, a receipt was granted showing the terms of that shipment. The words, which require to be noticed in the receipt, areas follows:All cargo received at No. 1 jetty remains at shipper's risk until placed on board the steamer.2. It appears that, for the purpose of transmitting from this jetty to the ship in midstream the goods, which had been in this manner received for shipment, arrangements had been made with the defendant, Ahmad Bux, and embodied in a contract, dated 11th March 1926, between Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co., on the one hand and Ahmad Bux on the other. In this contract, Ahmad...
Menaka Bala Dasi Vs. Hiralal Govindlal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal816,147Ind.Cas.206
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion this appeal fails and must be dismissed. The appeal is by the widow of the original defendant in a mortgage suit Satyasadhan Dutt. The suit was of 1924. In 1925 a preliminary decree for sale was made whereunder the Registrar reported that a sum of Rs. 76,000 would be due on a given date, namely, 9th September 1926, and on that date the plaintiffs became entitled for the first time to apply for a final decree for sale. By the practice of this Court such application is made by a notice of motion which comes on before the Judge as a matter listed on the daily cause list. The plaintiffs had three years from 9th September 1926, within which to bring the motion and that gave them time until 8th September 1929. Now it appears that on 26th January 1927, the plaintiffs brought a notice of motion against the then defendant, Satyasadhan Dutt. The matter came before the learned Judge as a listed motion and was adjourned for a month. It had been served on the defendant'...
Manmathanath Kundu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal401
ORDER1. This Reference (No. 128 of 1932) is one of several references made by the learned Sessions Judge of Dinajpur. It appears that one Babu Lokendra Mohan Sen was convicted by the Special Magistrate of Dinajpur under the provisions of Ordinance No. 2of 1932. He was sentenced to undergo a term of rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 400. The letter of reference states that a petition was presented to the learned Sessions Judge by one Kshitindra Mohan Sen, the brother of the convicted person. The petitioner brought the following facts to the notice of the Judge: It appears that, in order to realize the fine the Magistrate issued what the learned Judge describes as distress warrant in respect of certain moveable property which is stated to be the joint property of the petitioner and his brother, the convicted person. I have looked into the record of the Special Magistrate, and it is evident that he was prepared to accept the petitioner's statement that the moveable prope...
Karunakumar Datta Gupta Vs. Lankaran Patwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal759
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a suit to set aside an award of the Indian Chamber of Commerce upon certain contracts for the sale and purchase jute entered into by the plaintiff. A case, very similar on facts and in principle, was decided by Panckridge, J., in Chong Wong v. Brijmohan Dhandhania Suit No. 187 of 1929 Decided on 11th February 1930. The facts in outline are as follows:2. The plaintiff is a retired District Engineer. In September 1928, he was introduced by one Shisirkumar Ray to the defendant firm represented by Sobhachand. Sobhachand was and is a member of an association called The East India Jute Association, Limited, which was formed in 1927. According to the plaintiff and Shisir, the plaintiff wanted to do 'fatka' business. There were meetings between the, plaintiff and Sobhachand, at one of which, at any rate, Shisirkumar Ray was present. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the first interview between the plaintiff and Sobhachand took place outside the off...
Nirmala Sundari Debi Vs. Golap Bashini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal49,150Ind.Cas.68
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand made by the District Judge of Dacca on 24th March 1932. The learned District Judge evidently purported to act under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. The point in this appeal raises a question as to whether the remand was justified by the provisions of the said order and the said rule. It appears that the plaintiff who is the appellant before us instituted the present suit for setting aside a previous award and decree on various grounds. Her case is that the defendant brought a suit based on a right of easement against her in the Munsif's Court at Dacca and that after several adjournments in that suit the plaintiff's husband, without her consent and knowledge, referred the matters in dispute in that suit in addition to other matters which were outside the suit to arbitration; that the arbitrators submitted an award and a decree followed on the award; that the plaintiff knew nothing of these proceedings and that she...
Emperor Vs. Manmatha Nath Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1933
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.238
1. This Reference (No. 128 of 1932) is one of several references made by the learned Sessions Judge of Dinajpur.2. It appears that one Babu Lokendra Mohan Sen was convicted by the Special Magistrate of Dinajpur under the provisions of Ordinance No. II of 1932. He was sentenced to undergo a term of rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 400 The Letter of Reference states that a petition was presented to the learned Sessions Judge by one Kshitindra Mohan Sen the brother of the convicted person. The petitioner brought the following facts to the notice of the Judge. It appears that in order to realise the fine the Magistrate issued what the learned Judge describes as distress warrants in respect of certain movable property which is stated to be the joint property of the petitioner and his brother, the convicted person. I have looked into the record of the Special Magistrate. It is evident that he was prepared to accept the petitioner's statement that the movable property was j...
Kanai Lal Nandy and ors. Vs. Tinkari De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal564,145Ind.Cas.429
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kanai Lal Nandy and others who have been adjudicated insolvents on the petition of a creditor who is a respondent before us. In this petition of the creditor two acts of insolvency were alleged: (1) the two appellants filed a petition for adjudication as insolvents in the Court of the District Judge of 24-Pargannas on 5th January 1932 and thus committed an act of insolvency which continued from 5th January 1932 to 14th March 1932, the date on which it was dismissed for default; and (2) that some of the properties of the appellants had bean sold in execution of the decree of the First Munsif's for payment of money in certain execution cases on 18th January 1932. The present application of the petitioning creditor was made on 9th April 1932. The appellants objected to the said petition on the ground, amongst others, that the petition before insolvency is time-barred inasmuch as the act of insolvency as alleged by the said creditor in para. 8(a) of th...
Jyoti Prosad Singha Deo Bahadur Vs. Kenarem Dubey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal767
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: 73 bighas 3 cottas and 4 chhitaks of land in Mauza Dosra Napuria were acquired under the land Acquisition Act. It appears that the land in question was in the actual possession of Messrs. Apcar & Co. They were tenants under certain Kheraji Brahmottardars and these latter held the land under Raja Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur, zamindar of Panchkote. Messrs. Apcar & Co., were awarded a sum of Rs. 18,507-11-0 as compensation and they were satisfied with the award. As regards the rest of the parties, namely, the zamindar and the Kheraji Brahmottardars a sum of Rs. 30259-11-9 was awarded. There is dispute between the two sots of persons viz., the zamindar and the Kheraji Brahmottardars as to the division of this last mentioned sum of money. The District Judge, on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that no part of this said last mentioned sum should go to the zeminda...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. R.C. Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal727a,147Ind.Cas.204
Lort-Wllliams, J.1. Rule 36, Ch. 10, of the Original Side Rules provides as follows:Suits and proceedings, which have not appeared in the Prospective-List within six months from the date of institution, may be placed before a Judge in Chambers, on notice to the parties or their attorneys, to be dismissed for default, unless good cause is shown to the contrary, or be otherwise dealt with as the Judge may think proper.2. Formerly this was construed as meaning that, if a suit had not appeared in the Prospective List within six months from the date of institution, it might, subject to the discretion of the Judge in Chambers, be dismissed for default. The result was that such a suit was always thereafter in jeopardy, unless the plaintiff prosecuted it expeditiously.3. But in Haribux Shroff v. Dwijendramohan Ghosh : AIR1931Cal671 , the Chief Justice decided, and C.C. Ghose, J., agreed, that this construction was as they expressed it, 'impossible,' and that the rule means that if at the time ...
In Re: the Anglo Persian Oil Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal777
Rankin, C.J.1. The assessees are the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (India) Ltd., a company incorporated in England. They have since 1921. carried on, in India the business of selling fuel oil and other products through selling agents paid by commission on sales. Until-1928 the selling agents were Messrs. Shaw, Wallace & Co., but in that year the assessees determined this agency and a new company called the 'Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India' became the selling agent of the assessees. Pursuant to certain verbal negotiations the assessees in August 1928, paid to Messrs. Shaw, Wallace & Co. the sum of Rs. 3,25,000 as compensation for the loss of their office as agents to the assessees. The payment made in 1928 came to be considered by the income-tax authorities when dealing with assessments for the year 1929-30. In that year of assessment, the present assessees-the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (India), Ltd.-put forward the payment as a permissible deduction from their gro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »