Kolkata Court May 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.
ShamsuddIn Ahmed Vs. Charu Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal713
Costello, J.1. This matter comes before us by way of appeal from an order of Roy, J., made on. 3rd May 1934 whereby he refused to grant an interim injunction pending the hearing of the suit. The suit is brought by one Shamsuddin Ahmed, who is described as a ratepayer, voter and councillor of the Calcutta Corporation on behalf of himself and other elected Councillors of the Calcutta Corporation against ten defendants who are the persons nominated as members of the Calcutta Corporation by the Local Government under the provisions of Section 39, Calcutta Municipal Act 1923. An order was made that notice should be given by advertisement that the plaintiff was suing on behalf of himself and other persons in order to give an opportunity to the persons, whom the plaintiff purported to represent, to come into the suit if they so chose. We are informed that a certain number of the other elected members of the Calcutta Corporation have applied to be joined as defendants in the suit; The plaintif...
Gourhari Subhasundar and ors. Vs. Shyama Sundari Subhasundar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal824,153Ind.Cas.1055
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 4, and is directed against a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on 28th January 1930. The property which forms the subject matter of the partition suit belonged to one Keru Subhasundar who died in 1319 B. S. leaving behind him five sons Gourbari, defendant 1, Hari Charan, defendant 2, Abhoy, who is now dead, the husband of the plaintiff, Naba Kishore, defendant 3 and Nagarbashi, defendant 4 as well as his widow who is now dead. Keru rose to a position of affluence from a very humble position and left fairly considerable properties. The plaintiff who demanded a partition from the other cosharers did not find any response to her demands and has instituted the present suit for partition of immovable properties which were left by her father-in-law, Keru. The substantial defence to the suit, which was made by defendants 1, 2 and 4 who filed a joint written defence is that there had been a previous p...
ShamsuddIn Ahmad Vs. Charu Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.563
Costello, J.1. This matter comes before us by way of appeal from an order of Roy, J., made on May 3, 1934 Reported in 151 Ind. Cas. 675--[Ed.] whereby he refused to grant an interim injunction pending the hearing of the suit. The suit is brought by one Shamsuddin Ahmad, who is described as a ratepayer, voter and Councillor of the Calcutta Corporation on behalf of himself and other elected Councillors of the Calcutta Corporation against ten defendants who are the persons nominated as members of the Calcutta Corporation by the Local Government under the provisions of Section 39, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. An order was made that notice should be given by advertisement that the plaintiff was suing on behalf of himself and other persons in order to give an opportunity to the persons, whom the plaintiff purported to represent, to come into the suit if they so chose. We are informed that a certain number of the other elected members of the Calcutta Corporation have applied to be joined as ...
Muhamad SamiruddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal622,150Ind.Cas.1122
Bartley, J.1. Appellant was convicted in accordance with the unanimous verdict of the jury Under Section 471, I.P.C. His co-accused, Sudangshu, was unanimously acquitted on a charge of forgery. The case against both men was in brief, that Sudangshu, a clerk of the Union Board, had forged an entry in the Union Bate Books of Tilli Mouza, which purported to support a case that this appellant was assessed to chaukidari tax and therefore had a hut in Tillichur, before Phalgun 1337 B.S. The appellant filled and used this entry in a suit brought on the footing that he had dispossessed the plaintiffs in that suit from the chur lands in Phalgun 1337, The specific charge against Sudangshu was that be forged the entry at some time between 21st July and 15th September 1931. The specific charge against this appellant was that he used this entry in a title suit before the Munsiff on 8th June 1932, knowing or having reason to believe it to be a forgery. The learned Judge, in his charge to the jury, d...
Ambika Dassya Vs. Bejoy Chand Mohatap
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal831
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1332 to 1335 B. S. at Rs. 22-11-9 with interest and cess at 6 pies per rupee till 1333 B. S. and then at Rs. 3-7-9 per year from 1334 B. S. according to the valuation roll. The defendant contends that a large part of the suit lands has been permanently rendered useless by a deposit of sand and accordingly the defendant by a solenama in a rent suit brought against his tenant reduced the jama. The defendant claims that his jama should also be reduced proportionately. The abatement of rent as claimed by the defendant was allowed by the first Court, but in the appellate Court the suit was decreed in full. The learned District Judge held that Section 38, Ben. Ten. Act, did not apply to tenure holders and also that a tenant is not entitled to abatement of rent on the ground of natural justice. The learned District Judge appears to have overlooked the provisions of Section 52, Clause (b), Ben. Ten. Act, which...
Samarendranath Mitra and ors. Vs. Pyareecharan Laha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal160,155Ind.Cas.882
Costello, J.1. The facts, out of which this appeal arises, are set forth in the early part of the judgment of Buckland, J. In order to make it clear however how it came about that only certain issues were decided by the learned Judge it is necessary that I should recite some of the salient facts. In the year 1931, one Krishnakatyayanee Mitra became entitled to the estate of her grandfather, Kumarkrishna Deb, in the right of a Hindu lady. It is said that her husband, Asokenath Mitra, was a man of dissolute habits, who had dissipated the properties which he had himself inherited from his own father. The story is that Krishnakatyayanee Mitra was induced by her husband, Asokenath Mitra, to borrow various substantial sums of money and to create mortgages and other securities on the estate which she had acquired from her grandfather, in order that the personal debts of her husband might be paid off, and also to provide him with funds for what is described as his 'evil propensities.' It is sa...
Probodh Kumar Das Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal699,152Ind.Cas.571
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Buckland, J., arising out of a suit upon a contract of sale of a tea garden. It appears that some time in August 1931 one S.N. Roy approached Messrs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. with, an offer to purchase from them the Kaiyacherra Tea Estate as per description given by them. The terms upon which he offered to purchase were contained in a letter dated 19th August 1931. He added as postscript to his letter that Mr. P.K. Das, the present appellant, was agreeable to stand as guarantor. Subsequent to that letter, there were certain discussions between the parties, and an amended offer was made, and on 30th September 1931 Messrs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co., wrote saying that they could not accept the amended offer immediately, and asked Roy to leave it open till 7th October.2. On 8th October the company wrote accepting the offer contained in the letter of 19th August, subject to modification which had been arranged verbally, regardi...
Lalchand Amonmal Vs. M.C. Boid and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal810,152Ind.Cas.991
Buckland, AG. C.J.1. The hearing of this suit began on 2nd January last on which day several witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, on 3rd January applied for an adjournment of the hearing in order to make an application to amend the plaint. In allowing that application I delivered a short judgment for reasons which I gave. On 16th January next ensuing an application to amend the plaint was made by the learned Advocate-General, and again I delivered a judgment to which reference also can be made for information as to the earlier history of the suit. The affect of the amendment has been to change to a considerable extent the nature of the suit, which observation is introductory only.2. Among the witnesses called on 2nd January was one called Bhramarmal who said he was a partner in the plaintiff firm. No other witness so describing himself was called until today when a young man of the name of Pushraj w...
Mahedar Rahaman Mia Vs. Kanti Chandra Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal10
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that the election of the defendant to the Malda Local Board was illegal and void and for a perpetual injunction restraining him from exercising the functions of a member of the same Board. Various objections were taken by the plaintiff to the election of the defendant. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has pressed in this appeal only one objection, namely, that the defendant not being a qualified voter was not entitled to stand as a candidate in the election. The defendant's answer to this objection was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try that question. The Courts below have accepted the defendant's plea on this point and have agreed in dismissing the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.2. The only point for determination therefore in this appeal is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the question whethe...
Emperor Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Auddy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal836,153Ind.Cas.771
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case petitioner Lakshmi Narain Auddy of Joraghat, Chinsurah, has been convicted Under Section 76(b), Bengal Embankment Act 2 of 1882, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25, in default, to imprisonment for one month. He made a petition Under Section 435 to the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has sent a letter of reference recommending that the conviction be sat aside on the ground that the trying Magistrate was wrong to hold that the river Ganges came within the prohibited area notified by the Government in its notification No. 28-I of 5th September 1929. Mr. N. K. Basu has appeared in support of the reference.2. The grounds taken by Mr. Basu on behalf of the petitioner are (1) as stated by the Sessions Judge, that the notification of 5th September 1929 does not apply to the river Ganges at Hooghli; (2) that the conviction is wrong inasmuch as Section 76 does not apply to this part of the river having regard to the provisions of Section 91, Bengal Embankm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »