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.
Dinonath Vs. Hansraj Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Cal44,160Ind.Cas.1056
Lord Williams, J.1. The validity or otherwise of a clause in a will is the only question for decision in this appeal.2. Raghumull Khandelwal died on 5th September 1926, leaving a will dated 4th September 1926, and considerable property. Clause 1 of the will is as follows:I direct that all my debts be paid out of my estate in the first instance including the charities and subscriptions promised.3. The will was type--written, but the words ' including the charities and subscriptions promised ' were written in ink, and initialled in the margin, apparently at the last moment, but before execution. By Clause 14 thereof the testator bequeathed property of considerable value to trustees, for the purposes of education, hospital, orphanage, social service, widows and other religious and/or charitable purposes,' to be applied as the trustees should think fit.4. The executors issued advertisements to ascertain the names and the validity of the claims of parties to whom charities and subscriptions...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. H.E. Watson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal730,152Ind.Cas.566
Guha, J.1. These are two appeals by the Government of Bengal ; and they are directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on 16th December 1933, in regard to two separate charges, following upon complaints made against Mr. H.E. Watson, as Director, Statesman Printing Press, by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bengal on 9th November 1933. The complaints made were: (i) Under Section 41 (a) read with Section 28, and (ii) Under Section 43 (c) read with Section 35, Indian Factories Act.2. The case for the prosecution was that the Inspector of Factories inspected the factory, the Statesman Printing Press, on 15th and 19th October 1933, and found that one printer, five proof readers, and seven compositors in the advertisement section were employed on different dates beyond the time limit of eleven hours per day, as prescribed by Section 28, Indian Factories Act. It was further alleged that the register of persons employed as prescribed by...
Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Raj Kumar Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal751,152Ind.Cas.433
1. The appellant as decree-holder has purchased a taluk in execution of a rent decree and has applied for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code by demolition of pucca structures. The Munsif held that the prayer for delivery of possession of the land by breaking down the building on it cannot be entertained and 'delivery of possession of the land only should be given.' The Subordinate Judge on appeal affirmed the said order of the Munsif.2. In our opinion the prayer of the appellant for delivery of possession by demoliton of the pucca structures cannot be allowed. Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code entitles the purchasers to be put in possession of the purchased properties- the lands in this case-'and, if need be by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same.' The acts necessary to be done by the officer who is entrusted with the duty of executing a writ for delivery of possession issued under this Rule must vary according to the circumstances of each particular ...
Kamala Book Depot, Ltd. Vs. Sourendranath Mukherji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal508,157Ind.Cas.790
Remfry, J.1. In this case the plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing or selling a work called 'Sourendra Granthabali' containing a novel called 'Naree or Nishetta Dip'. It appears that on 16th April 1930 defendant 1, an author, sold to the plaintiff the first edition of his new novel, Nishetta Dip, which was to consist of 1,100 copies in twelve forms in double crown size, and to be priced at Re. 1-8-0 or Rs. 2 for Rs. 200 or Rs. 225 if the price was Rs. 2. Thereafter, on 15th August 1932, defendant 1 arranged with defendant 2 to publish the same novel as part of a collection of his novels, and he did publish it. The plaintiff has only sold about 250 copies of the first edition which was priced at Rs. 2 and the collection which contained 11 or 12 novels was published at Rs. 2. The only contested point was the legal effect of the first agreement. The plaintiff claims that the collection is an infringement of his rights and that the author could not publi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›