Kolkata Court March 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.
Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Hira Lal De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal712
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order by which an application made by one Hiralal De for permission to sue as a pauper was allowed by the second Subordinate Judge of Dacca on 29th June 1933. One Dina-bandhu De was travelling in a motor launch, named the 'Meghna' on 17th January 1933, when due to the negligent navigation of the Serang of the SS 'Mikir' owned by the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., there was a col-lision between the steamer and the motor boat with the result that Dina-bandhu De was drowned. On these allegations Dinabandhu's two sons, Hiralal De and Jitesh Chandra De, filed a plaint suing the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act (Act 13 of 1855). The plaint however was presented by Hiralal alone and not by Jitesh. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application of Jitesh but allowed that of Jitesh's brother Hiralal; and it is against this order allowing Hiralal's application for permission to sue in forma pauper...
Mohammad Zahadur Rahim Vs. Satyendra Narayan Mookhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal752
Mallik, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent is a patnidar of village Dadhia while defendant 1 is a patnidar of village Ayarpur which is contiguous to Dadhia. A mela is held on some land in Dadhia on the 3rd, 4th and 5th day after Sripanchimi every year. According to the plaintiff, defendant 1, along with the other defendants, has been trying to set up a rival mela on his land in Ayarpur on the three identical days by setting shopkeepers there by the use of force, violence, intimidation and threat for some time past. On these allegations the plaintiff instituted the suit that has given rise to the present appeal for a declaration of his right to hold a mela oh his land in Dadhia, for damages as compensation for the loss caused to him by the defendants' disturbance and interference with the plaintiff's right, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding a rival mela or setting up shops on their land in Ayarpur at the time of the Dadhia mela. The plaintiff's claim...
William Charles Binns Vs. W. and T. Avery Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal778,152Ind.Cas.117
Remfry, J.1. (His Lordship stated the facts as given above and after discussing the evidence concluded.) I find that the plaintiff agreed to accept a salary of Rs. 500 on 15th April 1932, and that the agreement was drawn up for a salary of Rs. 600 owing to a mistake on the part of the defendant company and did not express the intention of the parties, and that the plaintiff, fully realising the mistake, deliberately sought to take advantage of it. It was argued for the plaintiff that, on those findings, the result must be that the Court must enforce the contract as drawn up, for, as there was no counter-claim for rectification of that document, this Court could not give any equitable relief and that Section 22, Contract Act, provides that an agreement is not affected by a unilateral mistake. For the defendant, it was argued that a case of fraudulent misrepresentation had been established, and that, apart from anything in the nature of fraud, there was a mutual mistake of fact, or a mis...
Muhammad Zahadur Rahim Vs. Satyendra Narayan Mookhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.66
Mallik, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent is a patnidar of village Dadhia while defendant No. 1 is a patnidar of village Ayarpur which is contiguous to Dadhia. A mela is held on some land in Dadhia on the 3rd, 4th and 5th day after sri panchimi every year. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 along with the other defendants, has been trying to set up a rival mela, on his land in Ayarpur on the three identical days by setting shopkeepers there by the use of force, violence, intimidation and threat for some time past. On these allegations the plaintiff instituted the suit that has given rise to the present appeal for a declaration of his right to hold a mela on his land in Dadhia, for damages as compensation for the loss caused to him by the defendants' disturbance and interference with the plaintiff's right, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding a rival mela or setting up shops on their land in Ayarpur at the time of the Dadhia mela. The plaintif...
Ramlal Murlidhar Vs. Haribux Puranmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal796
Roy, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant firm under Section 19, Arbitration Act, for an order that all proceedings in this suit be stayed. It appears that on 28th June 1923 the defendant firm entered into a sowdah or contract with the plaintiff firm for the purchase of thirty bales of saris 10 yards 44 inches of Hati border of two colours, shipments July, August and September. An entry was made in the plaintiff firm's sowdah book setting out the terms of the contract between the plaintiff firm and the defendant firm which was signed by or on behalf of the defendant firm. The entry contains the following; words:As we bought the goods of Punna Lal Sagoremull we sold to you in the same way. All the terms and conditions are the same as there.2. There was, it is admitted, an arbitration clause in the contract by which the plaintiff firm had bought the goods, which they had sold to the defendants, from Punna Lal Sagoremull, and the applicant relies on the words I have just...
Hari Nath Das Vs. Chandra Kanta Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal479
ORDER1. The facts which have given rise to the present Rule were these. The decree-holder, petitioner, in execution of a decree for rent purchased the land in arrears, The sale took place on 19th September 1932 and it was confirmed on 4th November 1932. On 7th November 1932 there was an application for delivery of possession and possession was delivered on 21st December 1932. A day before this date, namely, on 20th December 1932, one of the judgment-debtors, namely, Chandra Kanta Sardar, filed an application under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, and Section 47, Civil P. C., for setting aside the sale. A Miscellaneous Case, namely, Case No. 120 of 1932 was started. This case was adjourned several times and on 27th May 1933, there was a compromise petition filed by both the parties to the effect that if the judgment-debtor paid the total dues to the decree-holder auction-purchaser before 27th August 1933,. the sale would be set aside and in default the petition for setting aside the sale wou...
In Re.H. a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal723
Mallik, J.1. This rule was issued on H, a pleader practising in the Court at Sealdah, to show cause why he should not be dismissed or suspended Under Section 13, Legal Practitioners' Act, on the ground of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty by giving notice Under Section 80, Civil P. C, upon Babu Kshirodeshwar Banerji, Subordinate Judge at Alipur, a notice which contained highly objectionable words. The notice is dated 12th September 1933 and was received by the Subordinate Judge on the 13th idem. It was signed by H and it purported to be given on behalf of his client, Rai Bahadur Jogendraohandra Ghose. At more than one place in the notice, the Subordinate Judge was charged with having misused his powers and he was charged also with having wantonly, with intent to harm and disgrace the Rai Bahadur, ordered an attachment before judgment. There can be no manner of doubt that these aceusations, coming from a pleader acting on behalf of his client, directed a...
Durgaprasad Vs. Kantichandra Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal1
Costello, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment delivered by Buckland, J., on 19th December 1933. As a result of that judgment, two orders were made. The suit in which these orders were made was Suit No. 2151 of 1933, and it was a suit brought by Kantichandra Mukerji, the Official Receiver, as the receiver appointed in Suit No. 1395 of 1933. The defendants were six persons, namely, Durgaprasad, Gangadhar and Satnarayan-all three residing at Kucha Chelan at Delhi, and described as traders and landholders, and Satnarayan Dalmia, Deokinandan Dalmia and Sedmull Dalmia-all residing at and carrying on business at No. 133, Cotton Street, in Calcutta and they were described as landholders.2. In order to appreciate how this suit came into existence, it is necessary to say something about the relationship of these six persons and the history of the litigation which had taken place between them. The first three defendants carried on business, in Delhi, as a firm, described as Parasram Ha...
In Re: Dewangunj Bank and Industry Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal117,155Ind.Cas.811
Buckland, J.1. This is an application on behalf two persons who have obtained decrees against the Dewangunj Bank & Industry Ltd., for an order modifying a scheme sanctioned by this Court under Section 153, Companies Act, by an order made on 17th July 1933.2. The circumstances were that the present petitioners ware depositors in the company and on 3rd January 1933 they obtained a decree against the company for Rs. 2,561 being the amount of their claim. They thereupon, as it has been submitted and in my judgment rightly, ceased to be depositors 'and became decree-holders against the company. The decree provided for payment by instalments extending over six years. The decree has been recognised by the bank, a payment having been made on 13th April 1933. Subsequently thereto the company embarked upon a scheme to which the sanction of the Court would be required under Section 153, Companies Act, and the usual orders were made, firstly, that of 23rd May 1933, by Panckridge, J., directing a m...
In Re: H, a Pleader Vs. ÂÂ
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.58
Mallik, J.1. This Rule was issued on H a Pleader practising in the Court at Sealdah, to show cause why he should not be dismissed or suspended under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, on the ground of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty by giving notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, upon Babu Kshirodeshwar Banerji, Subordinate Judge at Alipur, a notice which contained highly objectionable words. The notice is dated September 12, 1933 and was received by the Subordinate Judge on the 13th idem. It was signed by H and it purported to be given on behalf of his client, Ray Bahadur Jogendrachandra Ghose. At more than one place in the notice, the Subordinate Judge was charged with having misused his powers and he was charged also with having wantonly, with intent to harm and disgrace the Ray Bahadur ordered an attachment before judgment. There can be no manner of doubt that these accusations, coming from a Pleader acting on behalf of his client, dire...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›