Kolkata Court November 1935 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.
Makhan Lal Samadder Vs. Khagendra Nath Chakravarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal446,165Ind.Cas.650
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of one Makhan Lal Samaddar against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated 22nd May 1933. The question involved in the appeal is as to the rate of rent payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff before the year 1924 purchased a Ganti tenure in execution of a rent decree. It is said that thereafter he served a notice under Section 167, Ben. Ten. Act, on the Dar Gantidars, who may conveniently be called the Bachars, and on the predecessors in interest of the defendants before me who wore under tenants of the Bachars. Thereafter Makhan instituted a title suit (No. 16 of 1924) against the Bachars and the present defendants and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna. The basis of his claim was that the defendants of that suit were trespassers. He accordingly claimed recovery of khas possession and wasilaut. The rights of the parties were not adjudicated upon by the Court, as on 11th May 1925 ...
Chanchala Bala Debi Vs. Sashibhusan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal68,161Ind.Cas.919
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of plaintiff 1 and arises out of a suit (Title Suit No. 232 of 1931) instituted by him and plaintiff 2, a minor, to set aside a compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 176 of 1930. The last mentioned suit was brought by plaintiff 1, plaintiff 2 and their uncle, pro forma defendant 6, to establish their title to and recovery of possession, from the principal defendants of the lands described in Schedule Ka annexed to the plaint. The relevant facts are these: One Ram Krishna Samanta, grandfather of plaintiffs 1 and 2, and father of pro forma defendant 6, lent money to defendants 3 to 5 and the predecessor in interest of defendants 1 and 2. He took as security the properties described in Schedule Ka and Kha. Ram Krishna obtained a mortgage decree and in execution of the said decree caused the mortgaged properties to be put up to sale and himself purchased the same at the Court sale in the year 1919. It is the plaintiffs' case that Ram Krishna ...
Khaje Habibulla and ors. Vs. BepIn Chandra Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal454
Henderson, J.1. The litigation which has now culminated in the present appeal has had an extremely chequered history but it will not be necessary for our present purpose to set out all the facts. Suffice it to say that the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted for the purpose of settling a fair rent for certain lands which have accreted not only to the plaintiff's Zamindary, but also to the tenure of the defendants. The revenue authorities have fixed certain revenue upon it which the plaintiff is bound to pay and the plaintiff now asks that he also should be given an increase of rent from the defendants. But briefly his case is that he is entitled to it under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The respondents resist the claim upon three main grounds. Their first contentionis that they are exempted by the terms of the Patta and Kabuliat which were executed when the holding was originally created as long ago as the year 1273. In the second place they contend that...
Purna Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Alep Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal64
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for setting aside an election held under the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919, and the rules thereunder, in which the defendant was elected as a member, on the ground that he was not eligible to stand as a candidate for election. It may be mentioned that the case now stated in the plaint was not before the election authorities by way of protest against the candidature of the defendant for election; the objection relating to his eligibility was raised for the first time in the suit. The trial Court came to the decision, on an exhaustive review of the provisions of the law and on reference to the decisions of this Court, bearing upon the subject under consideration, that the suit was not maintainable. According to the Munsiff in the trial Court, the legislature has set up a special tribunal to decide the points sought to be raised in the suit, and the suit could not therefore be entertained by a civil Court; it was pointed that the plaintif...
Nirmal Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Mohitosh Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal106
D.N. Mitter, J.1. The history of this litigation which has culminated in this appeal carries us back to the year 1242 B.S., corresponding to 1835. The suit is for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession of some six rooms as part of 12 temples of God Shiva in Navadwip. The case made in the plaint which is pretty long is that the ancestor of some of the plaintiffs, one Gurudas, was the possessor of 16 annas share of the land on which these 12 temples are built in succession to their predecessor, in their own right, and in the right acquired by adverse possession against others for long over 12 years, as shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Dwadasha Shiva Thakurs and as heirs of their ancestors. After setting forth in their plaint the numerous events that happened including devolution of rights and interests on the death of the different members of the family who are named in the genealogical tree to which we will presently refer, the plaintiffs alleged that they have been dispossessed...
Jonab Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Satis Chandra Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal698,166Ind.Cas.73
1. One Nadiar Chand Roy was the owner of six properties which are plots Nos. 1 to 6 of schedule to the plaint. He mortgaged plots Nos. 1 to 4 to one Upendra Dutt in 1904 and again in 1906, and in 1913 he made a gift of the said properties in favour of one Chintamani Roy. Upendra Dutt obtained a preliminary decree on the basis of the first mortgage against Chintamani and others; and thereafter on 15th November 1920 he also obtained a final decree against them; but in the meantime on 23rd September 1919 which was a date after the preliminary decree and before the final decree, Chintamani had died leaving his widow Nanibala and a minor son namely the plaintiff. On the second mortgage Upendra Dutt instituted a suit after Chintamani's death against the plaintiff and some other persons, impleading the plaintiff as a minor represented by his mother as his guardian. The mother did not appear in the suit and on that one Munshi Obeidur Rahim, a pleader of the Court was appointed Court guardian f...
Banur-ud-dIn Biswas. Vs. Gani Mia Sawdagar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal21,160Ind.Cas.891
ORDER1. This rule was issued by this Court on the District Magistrate of Nadia as also on the opposite party to show cause why an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Nadia on 8th July 1935, setting aside, on appeal, the order of a Magistrate directing an amount of money to be returned to the opposite party should not be set aside.2. It would appear that in the trial before the Magistrate, the accused persons placed on their trial were acquitted of the charge under Section 411, I. P. C.; under Section 258, Criminal P. C., and the Magistrate directed that the money found with the accused in the course of a search was to be paid to the petitioner Banuruddin Biswas. There was an appeal to the Sessions Judge against the aforesaid order passed by the Magistrate under Section 517, Criminal P. C., relating to disposal of the money, and on appeal the order of the Magistrate was set aside. The Sessions Judge in allowing the appeal, directed that the money found with the appellants befo...
Emperor Vs. Bengal Salt Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal33,160Ind.Cas.829
Bartley, J.1. This is an appeal by the Legal Remembrancer, Bengal, against the acquittal of the respondents on a charge under Section 92 (5), Companies Act.2. The facts are that the respondents filed a prospectus in English in the office of the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, on 12th July 1934. This prospectus fulfilled all the requirements of law. Subsequently they issued a prospectus in Bengali, substantially identical with the English Prospectus, but which did not contain certain particulars required by Section 93 of the Act. A copy of this document was forwarded by a private person, to whom it had been sent, to the Registrar, who thereupon filed a complaint under Section 92 (5) of the Act before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the ground that the Bengali prospectus had been issued without having been filed before him. The learned Magistrate held that in effect the Bengali copy had been filed, that the offence was purely technical and that the omission was not culpable. He acqu...
In Re: Jalpaiguri Banking and Trading Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal662,165Ind.Cas.655
McNair, J.1. This is an application by the company that certain execution proceedings that have been undertaken by Rai Bahadur Kalipada Banerji in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri be stayed, so long as the scheme passed by this Court, remains in force. Kalipada Banerji obtained a decree against the Jalpaiguri Banking and Trading Corporation Limited in July 1934. Various payments were made under that decree and on 17th December 1934 the Company applied under Section 153, Companies Act, for the sanction of a scheme postponing payment of all unsecured creditors including decree-holders. A meeting was held and the scheme was passed in February of this year. In March there was an application by Kalipada Banerji to this Court in which he submitted that the scheme was not binding on him. That application was heard by my learned brother Cunliffe, J., who decided in a judgment reported in In Re: Jalpaiguri Banking & Trading Co. Ltd. (1935) 39 0 W N 875, that the creditor Kalipad...
Lalchand Deepchand Vs. Baijnath Jugal Kishore and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1937Cal140
Ameer Ali, J.1. This suit arises out of a very elementary trade dispute. It might have been decided by any trade arbitration in perhaps a few hours at a cost of less than Rs. 100. As it is, the parties quite rightly preferred to have their disputes decided by this Court which means decided by a system involving the maximum expense and the greatest uncertainty of result. However the case has been conducted in the best tradition of our system and with ability specially by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff who had certain initial difficulties to contend with.2. It would still remain a very simple matter but for certain considerations which I would enumerate. The first is the matter of pleading; the second is a matter arising out of the nature of the trade in question, namely the manner in which this sample or the alleged sample was dealt with, the third the manner in which the sample was compared with bulk. These two matters would be of course one with which expert arbitrators would be c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »