Kolkata Court March 1934 Judgments
W. D. Jordon Vs. Mahadeo Lai and Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal764
Lort Williams, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on 4th February 1933, under Section 72 (2), Provincial Insolvency Act. The insolvent was adjudicated on 10th March 1928, obtained the credit alleged on 28th December 1929, and was discharged on 2nd April 1932. The only substantial point raised on appeal is whether the Court had jurisdiction to make an order under the section after the insolvent had been discharged. In our opinion the Court had no such jurisdiction. Orders under the provisions of this section can be made only at some time prior to the date of the discharge of the insolvent and during the insolvency.2. This is clear from the terms of the section, which would be grammatically; inappropriate if they had been intended to apply to a discharged insolvent, who had committed such an offence during his insolvency and prior to his discharge. Moreover, that this was the intention of the legislature, is plainly indicated by the fact that Section 71 provides for the criminal l...
Tag this Judgment!Baikuntha Chandra Saha and anr. Vs. Shamsul Huque and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal662,152Ind.Cas.279
ORDERCostello, J.1. Although the amount at issue in this matter is very small the case raises one or two points of considerable interest and indeed of some public importance. The rule was directed against an order of the Munsif, 4th Court of Narayangunj, dated 19th June 1933, whereby he allowed an application made Under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The application was made by three persons: Samsul Huque also known as Arman Meah, Kurchhia Akhtar Bibi and Khosa Akhtar Khatun. The first two were the son and daughter of a man named Sahebdi Sarkar and the third was one of his widows. It appears that he also left another widow named Ahladi. As respondents to the application or, to use the expression which appears in Section 188, Bengal Tenancy Act, as parties defendant to the application, a number of other persons were described as the representatives in law of the two brothers of Sahebdi Sarkar who had been co-sharers with him in respect of the holding with which the application was co...
Tag this Judgment!Satulal Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Asiruddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal703
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 15, Letters Patent, from a judgment of my learned brother Patterson, J., who modified the decree of the lower appellate Court and restored the decree of the Munsif. Two points have been raised before us in respect of the appeal which has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is first contended that by reason of certain events which happened, the appeal before Patterson, J., should have been dismissed on the preliminary ground that as one of the defendant-appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and his heirs were not brought on the record, and the appeal having abated so far as the said defendant was concerned, the whole appeal had abated. This contention did not prevail with Patterson, J., and he held that this preliminary objection must be overruled, and we are of opinion that the learned Judge was right in his conclusion on this part of the case for reasons to be detailed presently.2. The suit out of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Surjyamal Haribaksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal783,152Ind.Cas.37
1. In this case the facts, which are not disputed, are that the plaintiff is a dealer in Assam silk, endind muga, and other silk cloths and yarns at Gauhati. On 3rd May 1927, four conspirators, intending to cheat him, came to his shop paid him an advance of Rs. 20-4 as and bought goods worth Rs. 710-4 as., leaving Rs. 690 to be paid, when the railway receipt would be sent to them by value payable post to an address in the municipal market in Calcutta. The plaintiff believing their story, sent the goods by railway parcel from Gauhati to Ranaghat and sent the railway receipt by value payable post to the address in the municipal market. The address in the municipal market being a bogus address, the receipt, after a time, was returned to the plaintiff. He then took steps and asked the station master at Ranaghat to return the parcel to him. But, long before that date, the conspirators had appeared at Ranaghat with a forged telegram purporting to be from the plaintiff at Gauhati and a forged...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Nath Haldar and anr. Vs. Girish Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal707,153Ind.Cas.170
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of my learned brother Patterson, J., reversing the decisions of the Courts below and decreeing the plaintiff's suit. It appears that the plaintiff who is the respondent before us brought a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the lands which are comprised within a certain non-transferable occupancy holding. To this suit the original tenant has not been impleaded, the case of the plaintiff being that he, the original tenant, has transferred the entire holding to the defendant who is in possession thereof as trespasser, and the transfer not having been recognized by the plaintiff who is the landlord of the holding in question, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in ejectment. The substantial defence to the suit is that the entire holding has not been transferred, that the original tenant still continues in possession of the holding and has never refused to pay rent and that there has been no a...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Kishore Choudhury and ors. Vs. Panchu Kapali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal709
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 15, Letters Patent, against a judgment of my learned brother Bartley, J. It appears that the Maharaja of Tipperah sued for khas possession of certain Lands impleading as defendants in the suit, two sets of persons, the first set claiming a right as superior landlord or talukdars and the second set, the tenants claiming to hold under them. The suit was decreed with costs against the landlords and certain tenants who had joined in contesting. It appears however that the costs although they were leviable from the landlords and the contesting tenants jointly and severally, were, as a matter of fact, realized from two of the landlords only. These landlords who are the appellants before us, brought a suit for contribution against the other defendants, viz., the other landlords and tenants who had contested with them the original suit. The Munsiff dismissed the suit as against the tenants, being of opinion that they were not liable to contribute. H...
Tag this Judgment!Anada Kishore Choudhury and ors. Vs. Panchu Kapali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.510
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, against a judgment of my learned brother Bartley, J.2. It appears that the Maharaja of Tippera sued for khas possession Of certain lands impleading as defendants in the suit, two sets of persons, the first set claiming a right as superior landlords or talukdars and the second set, the tenants claiming to hold under them. The suit was decreed with costs against the landlords and certain tenants who had joined in contesting. It appears, however, that the costs although they were leviable from the landlords and the contesting tenants jointly and severally, were, as a matter of fact, realized from two of the landlords only. These landlords who are the appellants before us, brought a suit for contribution against the other defendants, vie, the other landlords and tenants who had contested with them, the original suit. The Munsif dismissed the suit as against the tenants, being of opinion that they were not liable to contribute...
Tag this Judgment!Behary Lal Roy and ors. Vs. PulIn Behary Paul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal691,152Ind.Cas.480
Costello, J.1. In this case the present petitioners made an application Under Section 26-P, Ben. Ten. Act, for the purpose of securing the transfer to them as landlords of a certain holding it having previously been sold in execution of a money decree obtained in the second Court of the Subordinate Judge of Comilla against a man named Dengu Charan Debnath and some others and purchased by persons who are the opposite parties in the proceedings.2. The sale had been confirmed on 15th June 1932 and shortly thereafter, and within the time specified in Section 26-F the present petitioners as landlords deposited with the Collector Rs. 89-15-0 as the landlords' transfer-fee Under Section 26-D, Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioners after having received notice of the transfer on 31st August 1932 applied on 1st November 1932 for a re-transfer of the holding to them Under Section 26-F of the Act after depositing the price of the holding together with compensation at the rate of ten per cent. The op...
Tag this Judgment!Saburannessa Vs. Sabdu Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal693,152Ind.Cas.422
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 15, Letters Patent, from a judgment of my learned brother Mukerji, J. The appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff. Her suit has been defeated on the ground that the deed on which she founded her claim not having been registered according to the provisions of Section 54, T. P. Act, no title passed to her. It appears from the plaintiff's own statement in the plaint, that her husband made a gift of immoveable property in exchange for the dower. The character of such a transaction has been regarded as a kind of sale in a decision of this Court to which reference has been made by Mukerji, J., viz., the case of Abbas Ali v. Karim Buksh, (1909) 4 IC 466. This transaction is governed by Section 54, T. P. Act, and the consideration money being admittedly over one hundred it could only be made by a registered instrument.2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that a dower is not really a consideration for the marriage and it is in the nature ...
Tag this Judgment!Protiva Sundari Debi Vs. Sarada Charan Goho and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal15,155Ind.Cas.848
Buckland, AG.C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case asks for a declaration that the sale held by the Registrar of this Court on 25th September 1931 in Suit No. 1120 of 1927 is not binding. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff's husband and one Himangshu Sekhar Gupta were the joint owners of a moiety of a printing press known as the 'Gupta Press' situate at No. 221, Cornwallis Street, and the copyright in a publication known as the 'Gupta Press Panjika' as well as other publications.2. The owner of the other moiety was the defendant Sushila Bala Debi. In the year 1918 Sushila Bala Debi brought a suit against the plaintiff's husband for partition and accounts, and on 28th June 1918 Mr. Nripendra Nath Bose was appointed receiver. The terms on which he was appointed are set out in para. 3 of the plaint, and he was appointed to take possession of the 'Gupta Press' with its goodwill, lease hold rights, machinery, stock-in-trade, printing machineries copyright and materials of and in the Gu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »