Kolkata Court January 1934 Judgments
Benode Behari Chatterji and ors. Vs. Girindra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal536,150Ind.Cas.335
Jack, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge in connexion with an application Under Section 36, Bengal Municipal Act, should not be set aside. The application was made in connection with an election of Commissioners by three of the voters and one of the candidates 4. The Subordinate Judge heard the application Under Section 37 and dismissed it on the ground that it had not been made as required by Section 39. The ground on which the application was made was that the number of votes had not been correctly recorded. The votes were counted three times. On the first occasion opposite party No. 2 obtained 127 votes and opposite party No. 5, 131 votes. On the second occasion opposite party No. 2 obtained 130 votes and opposite party No. 5, 131 votes. On the third occasion opposite party No. 2 obtained 128 votes and opposite party No. 5, 127 votes. It is contended that inasmuch as there was another candidate, i.e. opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!Ramendra Mohan Tagore Vs. Keshab Chandra Chanda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal554,150Ind.Cas.982
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiff's case was that defendant 1 had acted as agent, and that on balance of account, a sum of Rs. 643 was due to the plaintiff. This account appeared in a hatchitta upon which there had been adjustments from time to time, the last being on 25th December 1926. On that date according to the plaint, the account was adjusted at the figure of Rs. 643 and on that day, the defendants took a loan from the plaintiff for that sum by executing in his favour a promissory note, thereby making a part payment towards the satisfaction of the debt due on account. They agreed to repay the principal amount due on the hand-note with interest. The account was stated to have arisen in respect of some misappropriations of cash made by the defendants. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on the date when the promissory note was executed, namely, 25th December 1926, and the plaintiff asked for a decree for Rs. 643 with interest upon the hand-note. At the end of the prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!Surath Chandra Saha Vs. Kripanath Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal549,150Ind.Cas.925
Lort-Williams, J.1. The document upon which this case turns is described as a hand-note. The maker of the hand-note, Kripa Nath Chowdhury, was the father of defendants 1, 2 and 3. The holder was Banwari Lall Shaha, the father of the pro forma defendants 5 to 8. The note was given in exchange for a loan of Rs. 325 and was payable on demand. The holder without endorsing it, sold his right, title and interest in the hand-note along with other property to the plaintiff by a registered kabala. The main point for decision was whether the plaintiff could sue the defendants and recover the amount of the hand-note. Both Courts below have dismissed the suit, on the ground that the rights arising upon such a document can be transferred only by endorsement and delivery.2. The hand-note is promissory note, and a promissory note is a written acknowledgment of debt with a promise to repay. It is also a memorandum of contract, and evidence of a chose in action or actionable claim. Thus, it may be tran...
Tag this Judgment!Madan theatres Ltd. Vs. Babulal Chowkhani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal603
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. I am of opinion that the preliminary objection taken by the company must prevail. The creditor presented a petition for compulsory winding up on 11th April 1933. The Court directed that the petition should be advertised as provided by the rules. The company moved the Court on 28th April 1933, to have the winding up petition taken off the file. Lort-Williams, J., directed that this should be done on the company furnishing security, to the satisfaction of the Registrar to the extent of Rs. 50,000 within a fortnight and that in default the application should stand dismissed with costs.2. On appeal by the company the Court reduced the security from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 30,000. On 7th June 1933, the Registrar in insolvency accepted five persons as sureties, the security being their interests in certain immovable properties in Calcutta and its suburbs. The creditor now wishes to appeal against the Registrar in Insolvency's decision under Rule 15, Chapter 6, of the Original...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmed Eusuf Vs. Umed Ali Mian and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal750
Patterson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rectification of a kobala or in the alternative for refund of proportionate consideration together with damages. The kobala in question differs from the bainama on which it purports to be based, both in respect of the total area of land conveyed and in respect of the northern boundary of that land. The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that there had been no mistake or fraud in the matter of the conveyance, and that the northern boundary had been changed with the knowledge of both parties. The learned Munsif further found that there was some deficiency in the area of the land actually conveyed but that having regard to the terms of the kabuliyat and the manner in which the plaint was framed, the plaintiff was not entitled to any refund or damages, and he accordingly dismissed the suit.2. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the learned Munsif in holding that there bid been no mistake or fraud, and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanayalal Bengani and anr. Vs. Kanmull Lodha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal405a
1. This is a rule to show cause why the proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. H. K. Dey, Fourth Presidency Magistrate, in respect of a case under Section 380, I. P. C., should not be quashed or at any rate stayed till the disposal of a suit No. 1125 of 1933, pending between the parties on the original side of this Court. On 13th May last the complainant laid an information of theft of two boxes of jewelleries, On that the two petitioners were arrested and an investigation being held by the police the petitioners were discharged: the Deputy Commissioner of Police observing that the case was doubtful and probably false. On 2nd June last the complainant lodged a complaint on which the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order under Section 202, Criminal P. C., sending the complaint to Mr. H. K. Dey for judicial enquiry and report. Mr. Dey thereupon examined some witnesses and issued summonses against the petitioners under Section 380, I. P. C. On 27th May last the firm of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal391
ORDER1. When we heard this application on the 22nd instant we were of opinion that no allegation contained in any of the paragraphs of the petition other then para. 10 would justify us in making an order for transfer and we asked for an explanation from the learned Magistrate as to what exactly he had done in connexion with the proceedings relating to Section 196-A, which is the matter referred to in para. 10. We have now received the explanation. It seems to us plain that in order to issue a Rule in this ' case for its transfer, we shall have to hold either that the learned Magistrate is disqualified from trying it in view of Section 556, Criminal P.C., on one or other of the grounds mentioned in Section 526 of the Criminal P.C., exists which would require such a transfer so far as Section 556, Criminal P. C., is concerned, it cannot be said, and indeed it has not been said by Mr. Taluq-dar who has argued the case of the petitioners with great ability and insistence, that any disquali...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Nath Sinha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal454
ORDER1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of two petitioners, No. 1 Raja Nagendra Nath Sinha Sahas Roy and No. 2 Nagendra Nath Das calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapur to show cause why certain proceedings complained of in the petition, on which this Rule has been issued, should not be quashed or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The facts necessary to be stated for the purposes of this Rule are the following. Petitioner 1 is the proprietor of a jungle which he alleges is in his khas possession, and petitioner 2 is a forest guard in the employ of petitioner 1. A complaint was lodged on behalf of petitioner 1 against one Baikuntha Nath Ghose and others as accused persons alleging that they were in possession of certain stolen properties, to wit, certain logs of Wood, the allegation being that they had been taken away by theft from a portion of the jungle in the khas possession of petitioner 1. The case was trie...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chandra Benode Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal808,152Ind.Cas.943
Mallik, J.1. This rule was issued on Babu Chandra Benode Das, a pleader of Sunamganj Munsif's Court in the District of Sylhet, to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed under the provisions of Section 12, Legal Practitioners' Act. The grounds on which the Rule was issued were that Babu Chandra Benode Das had been convicted by the Sub-divisional Officer of Sunamganj on 7th August 1930 Under Section 118, Criminal P. C, and directed to execute a bond for Rs. 500 with two sureties each in like amount, to be of good behaviour for one year and again by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sunamganj, on 26th February 1932 Under Section 17, Clause (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a year and a half and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, convictions which imply such a defect of character as would bring; him within the purview of Section 12, Legal Practitioners' Act. Babu Chandra Benode Das has not appeared before us. But by an explanation sent to us he has...
Tag this Judgment!Prokash Chandra Sircar Vs. Mohim Chand Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal392
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued at the instance of a complainant who instituted a complaint Under Section 408, I.P.C. The complaint related to a sum of Rs. 1,033 odd and purported to be against the accused as a gomasthe attached to the Sudder Kutcherry of the estate of Sri Sri Radha Madan Mohan Jeu which is situated at No. 3, Gocul Mitter Lane, Calcutta. The complainant's case is that the accused as such Gomasthe in the said estate was in charge of collections from tenants in various Mouzas in the district of Burdwan and that it was his duty to remit all realizations made by him and to rendar an account in respect of the same in the said Sudder Kutcherry. The complaint was based on the allegation that there was no account rendered in respect of the amount in question. After summons was issued the accused appeared and the case came on before Mr. H.K. De, 4th Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. Mr. De heard both sides on the question of jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »