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.
Amulya Charan Pal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal785,152Ind.Cas.646
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case a rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Sibsagar to show cause why the orders complained of in the petition should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. It appears that one Nepal Chandra Roy was accused of cheating under Section 420, I. P. C., and he was produced in the Court of Mr. Sarma, Magistrate of Sibsagar, on 23rd January last. The Magistrate allowed the accused person to go on furnishing a bail for Rs. 200. Thereupon the petitioner Amulya Charan Pal executed a bail-bond to this effect:The above named Nepal Chandra Roy will attend the Sibsagar Court in connexion with the case pending against him on the morning of 16th February 1933 at 11 A. M. during the time of first enquiry and shall appear on every (subsequent) day till the disposal of the case etc etc.2. On 16th February the Magistrate found that the place where the offence was committed was not in Sibsagar b...
Kamalakanta Debnath and ors. Vs. TamijaddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal24
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and for khas possession of certain lands. Plaintiffs' case is that the lands in suit appertained to the jote of Panchananda Debnath and that they purchased the same at an auction sale in execution of a decree against his heirs. Plaintiffs further alleged that they got symbolical possession through Court on 20th September 1921, but were prevented from taking actual possession by the defendants. Defendants 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement contending inter alia that the land in suit was not the exclusive property of Panchananda Debnath, but that he had only eight annas share therein. The trial Court held that the land in suit was the exclusive property of Panchananda Debnath and, in that view, decreed the plaintiffs' suit in full. On appeal by defendant 4, in which the other defendants were not made parties, the lower appellate Court held that Panchananda Debnath had only eight annas share in the ...
Mihirendra Kishore Dutt and ors. Vs. Brahmanbaria Loan Co. Ltd. and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal816,153Ind.Cas.511
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Ameer Ali, J., on 22nd August 1933. By that order he gave sanction to a scheme of arrangement put forward by the Brahmanbaria Loan Co., Ltd. which scheme of arrangement had been arrived at between the company and a body of creditors of that company at a meeting held on 25th June 1933, which had been convened under an order of this Court, made on 9th May 1933 under the provisions of Sub-section (1) Section 153, Companies Act. That sub-section provides:Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed between a company and its creditors or any class of them, or between the company and its members or any class of them, the Court may on the application in a summary way, of the company or of any creditor or member of the company or, in the case of a company being wound up, of the liquidator, order a meeting of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members of the company or class of members, as the case may be, to be called, held an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›