Kolkata Court July 1934 Judgments
Surendra Lal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Sultan Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal206
1. The respondents got a decree for khas possession against the appellants on 6th April 1925 and took delivery of possession in execution on 15th July 1925. That decree having been set aside on 1st August 1928, the appellants applied for restitution of the lands and they were restored to possession on 23rd August 1928. Thereafter the appellants applied for what they called mesne profits, assessing their total claim at Rs. 978. The Courts below found that the respondents did not hold the land in khas but through tenants with whom they had settled the lands on receiving a nazar of Rs. 1,100 and at a rental of Rs. 17 a year. The said Courts have awarded the appellants Rs. 51 as the amount of mesne profits for three years during which they had remained in possession at the rate of Rs. 17 per year, on the authority of the decision in Gurudas Kundu v. Hemendra Kumar 1929 PC 300 and Harry Kempson Gray v. Bhagu Meah 1930 PC 82. They have taken these decisions as laying down that the criterion ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath De and anr. Vs. Monohar De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal754,153Ind.Cas.671
1. This Rule is directed against the judgment and decree of the Second Court of the Munsif of Burdwan vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge in a suit brought by the petitioners against the opposite party No. 1 for recovery of a certain sum of money. The learned Munsif has dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 69, Clause (2), Partnership Act of 1932 is a bar against the present suit. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner and the opposite party (2) constituted a firm as contemplated by Section 4, Partnership Act, and that the said firm has not been registered as required by the Act. It is not also disputed that this suit was instituted after Section 69 of the Act came into operation. The only point for determination therefore is whether Section 69(2) of the Act is a bar to the maintainability of the present suit. Section 69(2) runs thus:No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against an...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Kumar Pal and anr. Vs. Mukunda Lal Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal20
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, dated 28th August 1929 by which he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs to set aside an alienation by the widow of the last male owner Bhagirath. The plaintiffs claimed to be reversionary heirs of Bhagirath. The relationship of the plaintiffs with the last male owner Bhagirath is shown in the genealogical tree to be found in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and which is printed at p. 67 of the first part of the paper-book. For the sake of convenience it is reproduced here with a slight variation and the genealogical tree as given at p. 57 is admitted by both parties. There is some dispute about the variation regarding Poran and Nishe Bhusan. Hari Prosad Mondal ________________________________|_________________________________ | | | | Hiralal Daival Ruplal Poran _____________|_________ | _________|______ | | | Nabin | | Nishi BhusanMukunda Gostha | Surendra Rajen(deft. 1) (dead) | (dead) (...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: an Advocate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal484,157Ind.Cas.374
Costello, J.1. On 29th December 1933, a complaint was made to the Court under Section 10, Bar Councils Act, by Mr. J.C. Galstaun concerning the conduct of an advocate whom he had instructed to file an appeal against a decision of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, which had been given on 10th September 1932, in an appeal in a suit brought by Raja Janaki Nath Roy against Mr. Galstaun, in the Court of the first Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas at Alipore, the suit having terminated on 13th December 1930, in favour of the plaintiff. The matter of the complaint was referred to by this Court for inquiry to the Bar Council under the provisions of Section 10, Sub-section (2), Bar Councils Act, 1926, and the case was duly inquired into by a committee of the Bar Council, that is to say, by a tribunal constituted under the provisions of Section 11, sub-S.-(2), Bar Councils Act. The findings of the tribunal were forwarded to the Court through the Bar Council in accordance with the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath De and anr. Vs. Nagendra Nath De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal815,153Ind.Cas.776
1. This appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs from an order refusing to file an award. The plaintiff's case was that there was a reference to arbitrators and an arbitration and award made without the intervention of the Court, and they applied to the Court that the award be filed in Court. The Judge held that the award not being registered was not admissible in evidence, in view of Section 49, Registration Act, and dismissed the suit.2. The award is a private award. Prior to the amendment of Section 17, Registration Act by Section 10, Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, Section 17(2)(vi) contained an exception as regards ' any award,' and so private award, though falling within Section 17(1)(b), was excepted from the category of documents compulsorily registrable. The appellant's contention is that the effect of the words ' and any award' being deleted by amendment was not to make the registration of private awards compulsory but to place private awards on the s...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Dassi Vs. President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal29
ORDER1. The facts which give rise to this Rule are as follows: Premises No. 115-1-1 Cornwallis Street and 7 Paul Lane in which the petitioner had a Hindu widow's estate were acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. Under Section 32(b), Land Acquisition Act, the compensation money, namely Rupees 42,515-11-5, was invested in G.P. Notes in 1914. Since then the G.P. Notes are being held in deposit by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal and the petitioner had been receiving the interest periodically accruing thereon. On 2nd March 1934 a notice was issued by the President, Calcutta Improvement Trust, upon the petitioner calling upon her to show cause why the said G.P. Notes should not be applied in whole or in part in the purchase of lands under the provisions of Section 32, Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner thereupon appeared before the learned President and prayed that the G.P. Notes in question might continue to remain in deposit as before on certain grounds. The learned President by ...
Tag this Judgment!Abbasali Bhuiya and ors. Vs. Ram Kanai Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal95
M.G. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Court of appeal below has decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs and set aside the ex parte decree in the Rent Suit No. 3 of 1927 and directed the re-trial of that rent suit.2. Upon hearing the learned advocates on both sides and upon perusal of the papers it appears that the learned Subordinate Judge has misdirected himself on the question of law. It appears that the Rent Suit No. 3 of 1927 was instituted in Chandpur Munsif's Court on 10th January 1927. The plaintiffs in that suit who are the defendants-appellants here claimed rent at Rs. 3-8-0 per annum against the principal defendant Abdul Karim and they also made the present plaintiff Ram Kanai a pro forma defendant on the ground that he was claiming the rent from the defendant tenant. The summons upon the plaintiff Ram Kanai Mazumdar was served twice. The first summons was ...
Tag this Judgment!Kher Singh Vs. Hari Punjabi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal756,152Ind.Cas.973
1. The order complained of in this case must be set aside on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to make an order of that description. We entirely disagree with the view expressed by the Judge in the order mentioned above, namely that the tentative nature of a verdict by a jury before whom the trial was held, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order relating to the custody of a minor. According to the Judge, the power to make such an order was inherent in all Courts which tried oases in which minors were concerned, although it is not clearly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code; and the Code, according to the Judge regulates procedure up to the conclusion of a trial, and not beyond it ; and any order passed in regard to the custody of a minor is based on the inherent power above-mentioned. In the case before us after having accepted the majority verdict of the jurors, the Judge recorded this order in the exercise of his i...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Forhad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal766,153Ind.Cas.493
Battley J.1. This appeal by the Local Government is directed against the acquittal of two persons, Forhad and Ramis, who were tried before an Assistant Sessions Judge of Dacca and a jury, on charges framed under Sections 366 and 458, I. P. C. The prosecution case in brief was that on the night of occurrence these two accused and another man cut away the mat wall of the hut in which a girl called Bimala, now said to be under 16 years of age, was sleeping, carried off the girl and disappeared. A week later, accused Ramis was arrested in Dacca and the girl was discovered in a house there. The defence was in the main that the girl, who was more than 16 years of age, was in love with accused Ramis, and left the house of her own accord. The jury unanimously found that the accused were not guilty of kidnapping. By a majority of 4 to 1, they found them not guilty of abduction and by a majority of 3 to 2, not guilty under Section 458, I. P. C. The Judge accepted the verdict. In order to appreci...
Tag this Judgment!Kuloda Prasad Majumdar and anr. Vs. Kumar Prativa Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal91
Mukerji, AG.C.J. and S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by some judgment-debtors in execution of a decree against whom the jama in arrears was sold and who applied for setting aside the sale. The decree-holder obtained the decree on 21st Dacember 1925. The sale at which the decree-holder himself made the purchase took place on 18th March 1929. The application to set the sale aside was made on 27th March 1929 under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. On 4th May 1929, the judgment-debtors were ordered under Section 174, Clause (3), Ben. Ten. Act, to deposit the decretal amount by the 27th of that month. On the date last mentioned, the time for the deposit was extended to 1st June 1929, on which date an application was made by them for further extension of time but was refused. The case was then taken up, but the judgment-debtors did not appear. On that, the application under Order 21, Rule 90 was dismissed for default. There was then an application filed by them for review which was ultimately...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »