Kolkata Court November 1934 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.
Dinanath Chandra and ors. Vs. Sudhanyamoni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal458
Nasim Ali, J.1. These ten appeals arise out of as many suits for enhancement of rent under Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff, that is the landlord, brought these suits against the tenant defendants on the allegation that their rent was liable to be enhanced in view of the provisions of Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. In the finally published Record of Rights the tenant defendants' status was recorded as that of tenure-holders. The defendants however in their defence took the plea that they were not tenure holders but were raiyats and consequently the provisions of Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act, were not applicable. The defendants also stated that the amount of enhancement claimed was excessive and unfair.2. The Courts below have concurrently rejected the defence of the tenants to the effect that they were raiyats. As regards the amount of enhancement, the trial Court on a consideration of the evidence in each individual case allowed to the landlord only 25 per cent of the net...
Girish Chandra Ghose Vs. Jadavpur Estate Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal389
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, First Court, at Alipur, under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. The opposite party in the Rule, as the landlord, applied to the Court for exercising his right of preemption as contemplated by law, in the case of a sale of a part of a holding to the petitioner. It appears from the materials before us that the landlord applicant did not, at the time of making the application for pre-emption, deposit in Court the amount of the consideration money together with the statutory compensation as required by the mandatory provisions of Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. On examination of the record, it is apparent that the chalan for the amount required to be deposited on 28th August 1933, the date on which the application for pre-emption was filed in Court, was filed on the next date, 29th August.2. In the circumstances therefore there was no alterative left for the Court other than to dismiss the application made by the landlord. The la...
R.C. Curtis Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal477,157Ind.Cas.653
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, made on behalf of Mr. R.C. Curtis, who desires to complain against a decision of Guha, J. who discharged a rule which had been issued to the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the order of conviction and sentence passed by him against the present applicant should not be set aside. Guha, J. confirmed and upheld the conviction and sentence.2. The learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner was invited to point to any authority to the effect that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition and, he has been unable to do so. This is not a new point. It was considered so far back as the year 1913 in Chintamon Singh v. Emperor (1913) 21 IC 470, in which it was decided that no appeal lies under Clause 41, Letters Patent, to His Majesty in Council against an order made by the High Court on its Appellate Side under Section 118, Criminal P.C. In the same volume, in Ataur ...
Hasanali Mirja and ors. Vs. Nushratali Mirja and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal572,157Ind.Cas.1091
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Subject to the modification hereinafter indicated, this appeal must be dismissed. The suit was instituted by two plaintiffs who are the respondents before me for a declaration that plaintiff 1 is the legitimate son of one Syed Azmut Ali Mirza, a political pensioner, and plaintiff 2 is his wife. There were other prayers in the plaint but having regard to the provisions of the Pensions Act they have been refused to the plaintiffs by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs have not preferred any cross-objection and therefore it is unnecessary to consider the reliefs which they claimed and which have been rejected by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs' case is that Syed Azmut Ali Mirza married defendant 4 as his first wife and by her he left surviving him three issues, namely defendants 1 to 3, and that the said gentleman also married plaintiff 2 whose legitimate son is plaintiff 1. Syed Azmut Ali Mirza died sometime in October 1927 and the plaintiff 1 was born o...
Sudha Sindhu Dey Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal101
ORDERCunliffe, J.1. This is an application relating to an interview with an accused person which was originally made to me in chambers sitting as a vacation Judge on the Criminal Side of this Court. It was then coupled with another application for bail. After an adjournment the bail application was dismissed. According to the report which has reached me from the District Magistrate the petitioner is in custody accused of a very serious crime. He is charged with the crime of dacoity with double murder. This dacoity is said to have been under-taken for the purpose of obtaining funds for revolutionary or terrorist purposes.2. I was particularly anxious to obtain in full the explanation of the learned District Magistrate of Hooghly, who made the order, because I felt that possibly a very serious principle was involved. The order to which exception is taken was in regard to an interview between the accused and his counsel. It was to the following effect:.This (the interview) may be allowed ...
Panchu Charan Addak and anr. Vs. Benode Behari Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal577,157Ind.Cas.1115
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one for ejectment of the defendants-appellants from a piece of bastu land and an adjoining tank on the basis of a notice to quit served on them by the plaintiffs-respondents on 5th October 1928. In the original plaint the bastu and the tank had been defined by one set of boundaries, but by an amendment of the plaint the bastu and the tank were shown as separate parcels in two schedules.2. The appellants press only one point, namely that the notice to quit is invalid, all other points raised by them in the Courts below and on which they got adverse decisions being properly abandoned, they being concluded by findings of fact binding on me in second, appeal. The material facts bearing upon the question pressed are the following. The plaintiffs are the owners of the bastu, but only co-owners of the tank. They let out the bastu to the defendants separately, but joined with their co-sharers (who are not parties to the suit) in, le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›