Kolkata Court December 1934 Judgments
Miss Moselle Solomon Vs. MartIn and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.331
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by Messrs. Martin & Co. for the price of sleel work Supplied by them, to the order of Mr. Moses Elias Solomon at 43, Free School Street.2. The plaintiff Company in the first place sued Mr. Solomon personally for the price of the goods and obtained a decree against him which they say they have been unable to execute. Subsequently they discovered that Mr. Solomon was trustee for the owners of a half share in the premises and that his daughter Miss Moselle Solomon was the owner of the other half share. The Company, therefore, brought this suit against, Mr. Solomon as trustee for the half share and against Miss Moselle Solomon as owner of the other half share on the ground that the order was really placed by Mr. Solomon as trustee for the half share and as agent for Miss Moselle Solomon as regards the other half share of the premises.3. Admittedly the goods were supplied to the order of Mr. Solomon and the price is due to the Company,...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Nath Sanyal Vs. Girish Chandra Lahiry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.375
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the landlord decree-holder. On April 14, 1931, he instituted a suit for rent against his tenant Naib Ali and recovered a decree on June 18, 1931. In the meantime opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 in whose favour Naib Ali had executed a mortgage, purchased the holding in execution of their mortgage decree on September 17, 1930. This sale was confirmed on August 17, 1931, and the notice under Section 26-E of the Bengal Tenancy Act was served on the petitioner on November 21, 1931. The petitioner put his decree in execution on September 7, 1933. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 filed an objection purporting to be under Section 47, of the Code of Civil Procedure in which they alleged that the execution could not proceed. It is not necessary to consider at this stage the merits of the said objection. It appears from the judgment of the Court below that the petitioner considered the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 to be representatives of the jud...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisulal-ganeshi Lal Vs. Gumbhirmull-pandya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1938Cal377
Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Buckland J. in a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 22,023 odd alleged to be due upon an adjustment of accounts and in respect of subsequent dealings and transactions. There were two firms named respectively Rekhab-chand Ghisulal and Ganeshilal Lachminarain. The firm of Rekhabchand Ghisulal carried on business in Calcutta as commission agents and consisted of four partners, viz. Ghisulal Chabra, Keshirmull Chabra, Ghogalal Keshriwal and Sunderlal Chabra who was a minor. The firm of Ganeshilal Lachminarain carried on business at Dhullian and consisted of Lachminarain, Badulal and Begraj. The fact that Badulal and Begraj were partners was during the proceedings denied by them and has been to some extent in issue in this appeal. But I am satisfied at any rate, that Badulal was a partner. On 2nd March 1924, these two firms agreed to carry on business together as a firm in the name of Ghisulal Ganeshilal, that is to say, the new firm was to c...
Tag this Judgment!Srikisson Beriwalla and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal182,159Ind.Cas.964
S.K. Ghose, J.1. In this Rule the question is whether the criminal proceedings under Ss 409 and 114, I.P.C., pending against the petitioners in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta should not be quashed or in the alternative stayed until the disposal of the two civil suits pending in the Original Side of this Court. A brief history of the circumstances which gave rise to the present proceedings may be relevant. It appears that there were two brothers, Bissessurlal and Matilal of whom the latter predeceased the former. Subsequently Bissessurlal died leaving a Will in which he appointed certain persons including the present two petitioners as executors and made various legacies. In 1927 Madan Mohini, the widow of Matilal, filed a suit No. 2336 of 1927 in the High Court against the executors alleging that the two brothers Matilal and Bissessurlal had separate estates. In 1928 Shamsundar, the adopted son of Bissessurlal filed a suit, being Suit No. 236 of 1928, against ...
Tag this Judgment!Kachi Hazam Vs. Seraj Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal403
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 436, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 75; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months and it has been directed that the fine, if realized, will go to the complainant as compensation. Shortly stated, the case for the prosecution is that the petitioner and others set fire to the house of one Seraj Khan who started proceedings by sending a telegram to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagnan, Police Station in the following terms:Kochi Hajam with party set fire my house burnt come. Sd. Sheraj Khan Pipulnam.2. This telegram was treated at the trial as the first information report under Section 154, Criminal P.C. The investigating police officer on going to the spot recorded the statement of Seraj Khan. But this statement was treated as one recorded under Section 161, Criminal P.C. The ground on which the Rule was issued is that the te...
Tag this Judgment!Dorman Long and Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagadish Chandra Mahindra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.997
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Remfly dismissing an application in respect of two orders made by the Controller of Patents and Designs, by which he refused to issue two subpoenas. The learned Judge was asked to issue awrit of certiorari in order that the orders might be quashed and to issue amandatory injunction directing the Controller to issue the two subpoenas. With regard to the form of the application, the learned Judge pointed out that it was defective, because the remedies asked for would not be effective unless the Court also directed the Controller to hear and adjudicate on the evidence of the two witnesses concerned. The petitioners had applied for a patent in respect of an alleged indention relating to steel alloys. Their application was opposed before the Controller of Patents on the ground that the invention was not new, and had not been sufficiently described in the specification. The learned Judge observed in his judgment that 'pend...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuram Agarwalla Vs. Abdul Latif and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal478,157Ind.Cas.971
Mukherji J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. He instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for declaration of his title to a certain share in some lands and for recovery of possession thereof with mesne profits after partition. The facts necessary to be stated for purposes of the points which have arisen in the present appeal are very few. One Bengu Mahomed had a four annas share of a tenure which previously bore a rental of Rs. 54-8-0 but now bears a rental of Rs. 75. He died leaving behind him 3 sons and a predeceased son's son. The predeceased son's son was amicably given a 1/8 of the share which Bengoo Mahomed owned and the remaining 7/8 of the share came to be owned and possessed by the 3 sons of Bengoo Mahomed who divided the same in three equal shares amongst themselves. One of these three sons was Kohordi Mahomed. Some of the sons of Kohordi Mahomed mortgaged the entire share of their father in the properties, viz. 4 annas 13 gandas and odd karas ou...
Tag this Judgment!Durgapada Karmakar Vs. Nrisingha Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal541,159Ind.Cas.20
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 in an action for ejectment. Plaintiffs case is that the plaint land was let out to the defendants at an annual rent of Rs. 3 that the tenancy was a tenancy at will and was determined by a notice to quit. On these allegations plaintiff brought the present suit for ejectment. The defendant pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff was not the owner of the entire land, that the northern portion of the land about 1 1/2 cottas in area was settled permanently by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff in the name of the defendants' eldest brother Ananda in 1319 B.S. by an unregistered patta. The defendants also claimed mokarari right on the basis of a new oral settlement by the plaintiff after his purchase. The defendants also claimed compensation for the structures raised by them on the disputed land. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On'appeal before the lower appellate Court the learned Judge has come to the following fi...
Tag this Judgment!Dhania Namasit Vs. Haji Niamatulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.102
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant No. 2 in a suit instituted against him and the Secretary of State for India in Council as defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits. Both the Courts below have granted him a decree for possession. The first Court granted him a decree for mesne profits also, making the Secretary of State for India in Council liable for one fourth and defendant No. 2 for three-fourths of the mesne profits. Both the Secretary of State for India and defendant No. 2 preferred appeals to the learned District Judge. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeals maintained the decree for possession but absolved the Secretary of State for India from the liability of paying mesne profits and held that defendant No. 2 was alone liable. Defendant No. 2 has preferred this appeal and challenges the decree for mesne profits only.2. The plaintiffs came to Court with the case that one Sheikh Sheru of Kankurail w...
Tag this Judgment!Prosanna Kumar Mistri and anr. Vs. Sudhangsu Kumar Roy Choudhury and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.457
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the legal representatives of defendant No. 9, in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of rent for the years 1332 to 1335 B.S. The plaintiffs are the 10 annas co-sharer landlords and they instituted the suit for recovery of their share of the rent at the rate of Rs. 70-12-6 per year in their share making the six annas co-sharer landlords parties defendants. In the plaint they state that they have separate collections and that they have not been able to ascertain what amount of rent is due for the period in suit to their co-sharers. In para. 3 of the plaint they state that Nrishna Mohan Mistry and another, the predecessors-in-interest of the tenant defendants, executed a kabuliyat in favour of their predecessor-in-interest on Sravan 26, 1299, B.S. by which they stipulated to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 4 per bigha on an area of 20 bighas 1 catta 5 chittaks 13 1/2 dhurs of land, that is, Rs. 80-5-4 a year. They further state that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »