Kolkata Court July 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.
Mathuresh Chakravarty Vs. S.R. Mills Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal150,155Ind.Cas.77
1. This is an appeal by a debtor against whom insolvency proceedings are pending in the Court of the District Judge of Hooghly. The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of this appeal are quite simple. The debtor was a surety against whom a certain money decree was being executed in the Misc. Ex. Case No, 101 of 1930 of the 2nd Subordinate Judge's Court, Hooghly. In the course of the said execution proceedings certain properties of the debtor were attached. Long after the attachment a petitioning creditor, namely, Pramatha Nath Chatterjee, started proceedings in insolvency as against the debtor alleging that the latter was indebted to him for a certain amount. The petitioning creditor, after his application was registered, filed a petition praying for restraining the decree-holders Sovaram Ramprasad Mills Ltd. from selling the properties of the debtor in the said execution case until the disposal of the Insolvency proceedings and for the appointment of a Receiver. The learned J...
Kedar Mull Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Wazifunnessa and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal745,152Ind.Cas.830
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling, dated 8th June 1933, allowing an application of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against them Under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C.2. The rule was issued on only one ground, namely, that the Subordinate Judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction to go into further enquiries as to the date of knowledge of the passing of the ex-parte decree, in view of the fact that the substituted service was due service according to law under Article 164, Limitation Act, and the period of limitation commenced to run from the date of the service. It appears from the order sheet of the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit that on 8th September 1931 the Court recorded the following order:Summons not properly served. Plaintiffs' advocate asks for summons Under Order 5, Rule 20. Issue summons accordingly. Fix 20th September 1931.3. On 20th September 1931, the following order was recorded:Defe...
Bindu Bashini Debi Vs. Provat Chandra Sarkel and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal92
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Backergunj dated 6th September 1933, reversing the order of the first Court Munsif at Barisal by which the learned Munsif set aside a sale under the provisions of Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act. The learned Munsif on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the processes were not served and that if there would have been any service, the petitioner would never have allowed the property to be sold for arrears of rent. The learned Munsif has observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be for a moment believed that the processes of sale were served. The learned Munsif further found that it was highly probable that the processes were intentionally suppressed by the decree-holder in collusion with, the judgment-debtor with a view to frustrate the claim of the petitioner. In this view of the matter the learned Munsif set aside the sale. An appeal then was taken by the auction-purchase...
Bhudeb Chandra Sarkar Vs. Asutosh Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal761,153Ind.Cas.992
1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor from an order dismissing his objection to a proposed sale of his tenure in arrears in execution of a decree for rent obtained in respect of it. The decree for rent, which was passed on compromise, was put into execution, and a combined writ of attachment and sale proclamation was issued under Section 163, Ben. Ten. Act. The judgment-debtor put in an objection in which several grounds were taken. This objection having been overruled, the present appeal has been preferred.2. One of the grounds of objection is that a sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid in part satisfaction of the decree, but no credit has been given for that payment. This objection falls within Section 47 of the Code, and so can legitimately form the subject matter of this appeal. On the merits, however, the objection cannot succeed, because no sufficient evidence to establish it has been adduced. The judgment-debtor has neither examined himself nor produced his accounts. His case is that t...
Bhaba Kanta Pachani Vs. Kerpai Chutia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal144
Henderson, J.1. The land which is the subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen formed part of the holding covered by pota No. 79 and originally belonged to one Sisuram. Sisuram left a widow Bhakuli and two daughters Lundari and Lengari. Lundari eloped with a certain Ahmad, and lived with him as his mistress for many years. Bhakuli died in 1916 and Lengari in 1926. The plaintiff purchased the property from Lundari in 1927. Defendant 1 claimed the property on the strength of a Will executed by Lengari. The plaintiff made an alternative prayer that he might obtain a refund of the purchase money from Lundari; this was decreed by the Munsiff. The plaintiff appealed to the lower appellate Court without success and now appeals to this Court. Three points have been taken on behalf of the appellants: (1) that in Hindu law a daughter is not debarred from inheritance on account of unchastity; (2) that any event Lundari was not guilty of unchastity within the meaning of the l...
In Re: Tarun Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal509,157Ind.Cas.975
ORDERRemfry, J.1. This is an application by the Collector of Calcutta under Section 19-H (4), Court-fees Act of 1870 as amended. The facts are that one Monmotha Nath Ghosh opened an account in the Post Office Savings Bank in the name of his minor son Tarun Kumar Ghosh as his guardian and made deposits in his name amounting to some Rs. 11,000. The son died a minor in October 1932. The father obtained letters of administration to the estate of his minor son in May 1933. In the affidavit of assets he set out this deposit, but in Sch. B claimed that it was held in trust not beneficially or with a general power to confer a beneficial interest. The Registrar of this Court granted a certificate under Section 4, Court-fees Act, certifying that no duty was payable. Pausing here, it seems to me that when a claim of this sort is made the Registrar should refer the matter to the Chief Justice. It is not a matter of valuation but of exemption. In the present application it is alleged on behalf of t...
In Re: Eliza Martin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal511,157Ind.Cas.936
ORDERRemfry, J.1. It appears that one Eliza Martin died intestate, on 15th January 1896, leaving some next of kin. Letters of administration were obtained to her estate by her daughter. That daughter died on 4th April 1905, and her son, the defendant obtained probate of her will. His mother had, it seems, put aside a sum of money said to be some Rs. 17,413-8-0 as the share of one of the brothers of Eliza Martin, one Thomas Jones, whose whereabouts were unknown. The defendant deposited this money in a Bank on interest. The present plaintiff obtained letters of administration de bonis non on 21st December 1933, to the estate of Eliza Martin. The defendant paid over to her same Rs. 17,413-8-0 as the share of Thomas Jones.2. The plaintiff has applied on an originating summons in which she seeks to make the defendant account for all interest obtained or which may be deemed to have been earned by this sum of Rs. 17,000 since 1905, and for an inquiry as to what moneys came into his hands. The...
Rafatulla Farazi Vs. Kundarmal Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal230,155Ind.Cas.723
1. This appeal must be allowed. The judgment-debtor is the appellant in this appeal. He objected to the execution that was being taken against him on the ground that the execution was barred by limitation. The facts necessary to be stated are that on the second occasion when the decree was sought to be executed the application for execution was filed on 1st September 1931 a date which was prima facie 13 days beyond three years from the date on which the first application for execution was disposed of. On receipt of this application for execution the executing Court made an order on the decree-holders asking them to show that the application was not barred by limitation. On the date fixed for the aforesaid purpose one of the decree-holders was examined and the Court recorded an order that limitation had been prima facie proved,' obviously meaning that the application was not barred by limitation. At the same time the Court issued notice to the judgment-debtor to show cause why the execu...
Purna Chandra Bagchi, Nabadwip Municipality Vs. Satish Chandra Modak a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal116
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by a Deputy Magistrate at Krishnagar, on 21st November 1933, under Section 240(3) and Section 241(3), Bengal Municipal Act. It appears that the petitioner the Chairman of the Nabadwip Municipality complained to the District Magistrate of Nadia, of an encroachment or obstruction upon a municipal road by the opposite party which the opposite party failed to remove on requisition by the Municipality. The Chairman of the Municipality prayed for an order authorizing him to remove the encroachment or obstruction; notice was thereupon issued on the opposite party by the Deputy Magistrate to whom the case was made over to show cause why they should not remove the encroachment: on an inquiry held by the Deputy Magistrate the application of the Chairman to the District Magistrate was dismissed, and the proceedings were dropped by the Deputy Magistrate, on the ground that neither Section 240(1)(b) nor Section 241, Bengal Municipal Act, was app...
Beryl Gertrude Sadler Vs. Harry Reginald Sadler
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal456
ORDERCostello, J.1. This is an application by Enid Peychers, a married woman, for leave to intervene in a suit for dissolution of marriage brought by Beryl Gertrude Sadler against her husband Harry Reginald Sadler, the suit being based upon an allegation that on diverse and repeated occasions between October 1930 and September 1931 and indeed between that date and the month of June 1932 the respondent Harry Reginald Sadler committed adultery with the present applicant.2. It appears that so far as the respondent is concerned, the suit is undefended, he neither having entered appearance nor made any answer to the petitioner's allegations against him. The suit as an undefended suit appeared on the list before Buckland, J., on 3rd July, but upon the case being called on, counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that by some inadvertence, if not negligence, the woman with whom adultery was charged, that is to say, the present applicant, had never been served wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »