Kolkata Court June 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.
Subodhchandra Niyogi Vs. Bhubalika Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal356
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 3 from a preliminary decree made by the Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas on 17th August 1929, and arises in a suit for partition of five items of immovable properties mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and of moveable properties mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. The plaintiffs claim eight annas share of the said properties under one title and two annas under another title. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed plaintiffs' claim in respect of the Schedule B properties (moveables). He has, however, granted a decree declaring plaintiffs' title to eight annas share of the immovable properties described in Schedule A and has appointed a commissioner to effect the partition of the same. Hence the present appeal by defendant 3, who contends that the entire suit should have been dismissed. The relationship between the parties to the suit is shown in the following genealogical tree: BISWANATH NIYOGI By his first wife | By his second wife |-----...
Chundy Churn Law Vs. Rohini Kumar Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal119
Mitter, J.1. Two questions have been submitted to us by the Munsif, Central Court, Comilla, Under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil PC. The circumstances under which this reference arises and the nature of the documents which require to be considered have been accurately stated in the letter of reference addressed to the Registrar of this Court.(A) With reference to the interpretation of the kabuliat (Ex. l) our view is that on a proper construction of the kabuliat which was executed long before the enactment of the Bengal Tenancy-Act of 1885 there can be no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to realize both interest and damages. This view is in consonance with construction of similar Kabuliats which came up for consideration in this Court in appeals from appellate decrees Nos. 1347-50 of 1928, 1867-68 of 1929, 1930 of 1929 and 2767, 2768 of 1929. In appeal from appellate decree No. 584 of 1932 a contrary view was not taken seeing that the words 'mai sud' which occur in the other kabuliats do ...
In Re: Binjraj Harnandrai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal232
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. Notice of this application was taken out by Messrs. Hoare, Miller & Co., Ltd., on 7th December 1932. It is sought by the application to impeach certain transactions entered into by the insolvents and to have them declared void as against the Official Assignee under Sections 55 and 56, Presidency-towns Insolvency Act. The application is supported by an affidavit of a principal officer of the company, who states that the company are creditors of the insolvents to the extent of Rs. 38,000. The deponent also states that he has requested the Official Assignee to make this application, but the Official Assignee has declined, although the company was willing to accept responsibility for the costs incurred by him. Certain preliminary points are taken. It is said that the company has no locus standi in the matter, and that their proper remedy is an appeal to the Court under Section 86 of the Act against the decision of the Official Assignee refusing to make the application...
Jogendra Mohan Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal695
1. We have examined the record. We are not of opinion that the hoisting of what is called the national flag in the circumstances disclosed over a shop or refusal to take it down at the request of the police amounts to assisting the operations of an unlawful association or is an offence under Section 17(1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908: sec in this connexion the case of Ram Prasad v. Emperor : AIR1933All95 which is on all fours with the present case. The result therefore is that the convictions of and the sentences passed on the petitioners are set aside and the fines, if paid, will be refunded....
Manohar Baidya and anr. Vs. Bhabasidhu Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal121,150Ind.Cas.90
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application made by the landlord respondent to this Court for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of a tenancy. There was a claim by the landlord for additional rent for additional area. The question raised in this behalf as between the landlord and the tenants concerned was this, as set cut in issue 3 raised for determination in the case:2. Is the plaintiff entitled to get additional rent for additional area? If so what is the excess area and what should be its additional rent and at what rate?3. The Assistant Settlement Officer who dealt with the application made by the landlord Under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, came to the conclusion on the materials before him regard being specially had to the kabuliyat Ex. B in the case, that the rent payable by the tenants in respect of the tenancy was consolidated rent and the landlord was not therefore entitled to get additional rent for additional area as claimed by him in the application Under ...
Jogendra Mohan Choudhury and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.240
1. We have examined the record. We are not of opinion that the hoisting of what is called the national flag' in the circumstances disclosed over a shop or refusal to take it down at the request of the Police amounts to assisting the operations of an unlawful association or is an offence under Section 17 140 Ind. Cas. 497 : 34 Cr. L. J. 22 : Ind. Rul (1932) All. 652 : A. I. R. 1933 All, 95 : (1933) Cr. Cas. 121, of the Criminal1 Law Amendment Act, 1908, [See in this connection the case of Ram Prasad v. Emperor, 34 Cr. L'. J. 22 140 Ind. Cas. 497 : 34 Cr. L. J. 22 : Ind. Rul (1932) All. 652 : A. I. R. 1933 All, 95 : (1933) Cr. Cas. 121, which is on all fours with the present case]. The result, therefore, is that the convictions of and the sentences passed on the petitioners are set aside and the fines, if paid, will be refunded....
Garibulla Shekh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal722
1. These appellants were charged with three others under Sections 148, 324, 304, Part 2 (two counts), and Section 304, Part 2 read with Section 149, I.P.C., and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh and a jury. Garibulla was found guilty under Sections 324 and 304, Part 2, the latter for causing the death of two persons. They also found him guilty under Section 148. The other six appellants were found guilty under Sections 14.8 and 304, Part 2, read with Section 149. The remaining accused were found not guilty. The learned Judge sentenced the appellants to various terms of imprisonment. The trouble which occasioned this trial arose, as so often happens, over the possession of a particular piece of land claimed by opposite parties. Both parties gave information about the fight and the only question which the jury had to decide was, who were the aggressors. This turned on the question of possession. According to the prosecution, their witnesses were engaged in transplantin...
Secy. of State Vs. Ramnath Bhatta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal128,150Ind.Cas.440
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, in a suit in which the plaintiff, Ramnath Bhatta, claimed damages for a wrongful act of the Collector of Chittagong. The facts, on which there is no dispute, are that one Faizali was the recorded proprietor of a certain revenue paying taluk. The plaintiff purchased the taluk on 14th May 1919 in execution of his mortgage decree. Two years later, on 16th June 1921, he applied for registration of his name in place of Faizali. The Land Registration Officer decreed his case on 19th September 1921. The decree was drawn up in January 1922, and the plaintiff's name was substituted in place of Faizali in the register on or about 16th February 1922. But before that date namely on 22nd November 1921, the taluk was duly sold by the Collector for arrears of revenue under the Bengal Land Reveune Sales Act of 1859. After paying all Government arrears there remained a sum of Rs. 1,504 odd the surplus sale...
Abdul Sobhan Vs. Benimadhab Kshettri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal430
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C. J.1. The facts involved in this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs alleged that on various dates between 25th September 1930 and 5th November 1930, they advanced to the defendants Abdul Eazak and Abdul Sobhan a sum of Rs. 10,000 which the latter undertook to repay with interest, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The plaintiffs further alleged that both, the defendants, who are father and son, carried on business in co-partnership. Defendant 2, Abdul Sobhan, in his written statement denied that he carried on business in co-partnership with Abdul Razak, and further contended that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. He also added as-follows:The defendant denies that the plaintiff's lent and advanced to this defendant in the defendants' businesses mentioned in the cause title to the plaint the sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the various dates given in the particulars of para. 1 of the plaint. Thi...
Hrishikesh Chatterjee and ors. Vs. B. Naba Krishna Roy Chowdhury and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal122
1. What has happened in this case is this: In the Record of Rights the defendant was described as being an occupancy raiyat. Thereafter the landlord brought a suit under the provisions of Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act., for the settlement of fair and equitable rent. In that suit the defendant made an application Under Section 105-A, Ben. Ten. Act, for the decision of the issue, namely: 'What is the status of the defendant?' and under orders of Court he paid ad valorem court-fee on the value of the suit. The landlord wanted to withdraw the application Under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, with liberty to bring a fresh application. The application of the landlord was refused and thereafter the application Under Section 105 filed by the landlord was not proceeded with and the application was dismissed for default in prosecution. No orders were passed deciding the issue raised by the tenant defendant and the position therefore was that unless there was an application for the settlement of fair an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »