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.
Puran Chandra Bagchi, Nabadwip Municipality Vs. Satis Chandra Modak an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.417
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by a Deputy Magistrate at Krishnagar, on November 21, 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 ap...
Jagat Chandra De Vs. Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal139
1. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal and which are in dispute now are as follows: One Dasarath De, who is defendant 6 in the present suit, mortgaged the disputed land to the father of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants 7 and 8 and the husband of pro forma defendant 9 on 20th Sraban 1274 M.E. corresponding to 4th August 1912. The plaintiff and the pro forma defendants brought a suit on their mortgage on 9th July 1920. Usual mortgage decree for sale was passed on 8th September 1923 and the property was purchased by the plaintiff on 8th May 1924. The same mortgagor, that is defendant 6, mortgaged these very lands to one Lakshi Charan Saha on 21st Chaitra 1274 corresponding to 5th April 1913. Lakshi Charan Saha's son Prasanna Kumar Saha sued on his father's mortgage on 2nd June 1919 and obtained a decree on 11th September 1919 in execution of this mortgage decree. Defendant 2 purchased the property in execution of the mortgage decree on 2nd February...
Nayebali Sarkar and ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal151
Henderson, J.1. Only two points of any substance have been taken by Mr. Pakrashi on behalf the appellants; but in order to understand them it is necessary to note certain facts. The suit was brought against the defendants in a representative capacity as representing the Mahomedan public. It is common ground that the disputed plot formed a gote of one Gedu. The plaintiffs based their title on two successive transfers. The case of the defendants is that the land was dedicated to the Mahomedan public by Gedu. While purchasing the whole of the jote the plaintiffs also have a share in the superior interest to the extent of 4 annas 6 gandas. The first point taken is that the plaintiffs cannot maintain their action for ejectment as the raiyati interest has been extinguished and the plaintiffs only own a portion of the superior interest. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the holding was a transferable one and that the case was governed by Section 22, Ben. Ten. Act, before the amendment ...
Jogendra Lal Pal and ors. Vs. Sheikh Anju
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal108a
ORDER1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Dacca and upon the opposite party, Sheik Anju, to show cause why the order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of Munshigunge, on 14th December 1933, purported to be made under Section 143, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. On the materials placed before as, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Rule should be made absolute on the grounds on which it was issued, viz., that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 143, Criminal P.C., without drawing up a proceeding, without taking evidence, and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their case, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal; and further that the order made by the Magistrate under Section 143, Criminal P.C., without an adjudication about the existence of the public nuisance as contemplated in the section by a competent Court is bad in law and illegal. It does not appear to us, from the judgment recorded by the ...
Satish Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Niladri Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal788
Costello, J.1. Three persons Niladri Nath Mukherji, Himadri Nath Mukherji and Bindhyadri Nath Mukherji who were the grandsons of Rai Bankim Chandra Chatterjee Bahadur who died on 8th April 1894, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, against Satish Chandra Mukherji who is described as the proprietor of the 'Basumati' and of the Basumati Press and Basumati Sahitya Mandir, and as carrying on business as book-seller and publisher, and also against Brojendra Sundar Banerji who is the first cousin of the three plaintiffs and so also a grandson of Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. The three plaintiffs are the sons of Sm. Nilabja Kumari Debi, and the defendant Brojendra is the son of Sm. Sarat Kumari Debi. Those two ladies are the daughters of Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. The plaintiffs sued for recovery of damages which they assessed at one lac of Rupees for infringement of the copyright in the works of Bankim Chandra who was a well-known Bengalee litterateur, and t...
Raj and anr. Vs. Ayesha Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal739,153Ind.Cas.158
1. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the heirs of the original underraiyat who had acquired a right of occupancy by custom were entitled to continue the appeal after the death of the original under-raiyat. It appears that the suit for ejecting the original under-raiyat, that is the predecessor ininterest of the respondents was instituted on 11th February 1928 on the ground that the under raiyati was determined by service of notice Under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plea of the original under-raiyat who was the defendant in the suit was that he had acquired at right of occupancy by custom and consequently he was not liable to be ejected by service of notice Under Section 49. While this suit was pending before the trial Court the new Bengal Tenancy Act came into operation on 21st February 1929. By virtue of Section 49-F of the new Act the under raiyati became heritable and consequently his heirs after his death w...
DabiruddIn Sarkar Vs. Afaddi Mamud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal149
McNair, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment. The defendant in that suit is the appellant before mo. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant was an under raiyat whose tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit. The defendant denies that he received the notice. He says that the plaintiff is only one of several co-sharers and that the suit would not lie unless they are made parties to the plaintiff's suit. He also says that he has an occupancy right in the disputed land and he claims, in any case, to be entitled to compensation for improvements which he made on the property. The question as to notice to quit has been decided against the defendant. It has been decided by the lower appellate Court differing from the trial Court that there had been a partition between the plaintiff and his co-sharers some 10 or 12 years ago. The evidence and the reasonings on which the learned Subordinate Judge comes to his finding that the plaintiff is the sole landlord do not appear to me very...
Saratchandra Sen Vs. Mrityunjay Ray Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal336
ORDER1. This rule is directed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated 1st August 1933, 8th August 1933, 11th August 1933 and also 23rd April 1934. It appears that the plaintiffs, opposite party, instituted a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur on 13th July 1932, for recovery of Rs. 10,000 on the allegation that the cause of action for the suit arose on 13th July 1929. The plaint was filed on payment of a court-fee stamp of annas two only, though the requisite court-fee payable was Rs. 750. The Court, thereupon, granted extension of time for filing the deficit court-fee. Ultimately the plaintiff having failed to put in the deficit court-fee, the plaint was rejected on 4th August 1932. About a year after the rejection of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application on 18th July 1933 before the learned Subordinate Judge, purporting to be under Section 151, Civil P.C., for revival of the plaint which was rejected on 4th Augu...
Jateendra Chandra Bandopadhyay and ors. Vs. Rebateemohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal333,158Ind.Cas.191
1. The facts, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows: One Rajchandra was the owner of certain properties. He executed a will on 18th September 1888, by which he bequeathed his properties to his grandsons, i.e., son's sons, Rajendra and Jogendra. Rajchandra died on 28th November 1899, leaving Girish as his only son. On 29th October 1911 Girish mortgaged the properties, which are the subject matter of the present litigation, to the respondents. The respondents obtained a mortgage decree on the basis of the said mortgage against Girish on 3rd December 1917. On 2nd December 1924, Chandrakala, the wife of Girish, who was appointed executrix by the will of Rajchandra, obtained probate in common form. Subsequently, the probate proceedings were contested and the probate was ultimately issued to Chandrakala on 25th May 1927. On 2nd January 1925 Chandrakala instituted a suit for a declaration that the mortgaged properties were not liable to be sold on the allegation that the mortg...
In Re: L.E. Salsicioni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.627
ORDERRemfry, J.1. This is an application to adjudicate a debtor. It is not suggested that he has not committed an act of insolvency, as alleged, within the jurisdiction.2. The point taken in his favour is that the petition alleged that this Court had jurisdiction because the debtor carried on business at an address in Calcutta, whereas it is contended that he merely works for gain at the address given, and he admits that at the material times he did so work for gain and also resided within the jurisdiction.3. For the petitioning creditor it was argued that the debtor did carry on business in person and that even if he did not, under s, 11 of the Presidency Towns insolvency Act, provided that the debtor came within one or other of the grounds on which jurisdiction is based, the Court should, where the act of insolvency also took place within the jurisdiction, disregard the erroneous allegation made in the petition, and deem it sufficient that the debtor resides and worked for gain withi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »