Kolkata Court December 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.
Nishi Kanta Sarkar Vs. Sir David Ezra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal135,166Ind.Cas.299
McNair, J.1. These three suits have been heard together as their decision depends on the same facts. The main suit has been brought by Nishi Kanta Sarkar (to whom I shall refer as the plaintiff) against Sir David Ezra and Mr. Tylor Bryan, defendants 1 and 2, for damages for encroachment, for suspension and abatement of rent, and for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the joint use of a common passage. Sir David Ezra is the lessor, and Sarkar and Bryan were lessees under him of Nos. 10 and 9, Chowringhee, respectively. In the other two suits Sir David Ezra sues Mr Sarkar for arrears of rent. In the main suit the plaintiff claims a right of user over a passage between his premises No. 10 and the premises No. 9, Chowringhee. It is common ground that a platform was built over that passage in July 1933, and was in position until July 1934. The plaintiff contends that it remained for a further two months before it was demolished. Both the defendants accept responsibility for the...
Shah Tajmul Ali and anr. Vs. Kamala Ranjan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal138
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and arises out of a suit originally brought by the plaintiff, a ward of Court, through the Manager of the Court of Wards, for a declaration that certain proceedings purported to have been taken under the Estates Partition Act (Act 5 of 1897 B. C.) are void from a particular point of time and that every thing done thereafter including the partition of a revenue paying estate is void. The Subordinate Judge has granted a decree to the plaintiff and hence the present appeal by defendant 1. There are numerous defendants to this suit. The facts on which the present appeal depends lie within a very small compass and are not in dispute. They may be briefly stated as follows: In 1911 proceedings for the partition of Tauzi No. 31 of the Tipperah Collectorate consisting of 39 Mouzas were started and the Deputy Collector made the final partition as provided by the Estates Partition Act. The partition was approved by the Collector (See part ...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Monarch Bioscope Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal145
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Corporation of Calcutta. The facts in short are these: The plaintiff, the Monarch Bioscope Co., which is a peripatetic Bioscope Co., obtained a license from the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, to exhibit at a certain Mela within the Corporation of Calcutta, and according to their license they were opening the cinema show on 23rd April 1929. They had put up their temporary erections and were selling their tickets when a Corporation officer appeared with police help and prevented the company from exhibiting the cinema show on the ground that they had not taken a license from the Corporation of Calcutta. The plaintiffs' case is that after they obtained a license from the Commissioner of Police they were not bound to take a further license from the Corporation of Calcutta and the action of the Corporation officer was ultra vires and oppressive and they claimed damages for the same. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were lega...
Secy. of State Vs. Krishna Prosad Roy Chaudhuri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal774
D.N. Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs, now appellants, for a declaration that the Government have no right to resume any portion of certain Ilam lands covered by pottas Nos. 3 and 9 in suit, that is to say, potta No. 24512/9 / 24505/3 present No. 1 or to settle the same after resumption with any other third person and for a further declaration that the plaintiffs have the status of 'landholder' in respect of the lands of the pottas in suit within the meaning of Assam Land Revenue Regulation, Regulation 1 of 1886, as well as for confirmation of possession of the two plaintiffs of the lands of-the patta in suit and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Secy. of State from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also asked in the suit for a declaration that they have exclusive right to take settlement from the Government at a proper jama of all the land of the Ilam Pottas in suit and they prayed for other reliefs also...
Manindra Nath Sen Vs. Khudiram Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal142
Mukherjee, Ag. C. J.1. This appeal is pressed upon two grounds. The first ground is to the effect that the revenue sale to set aside which the plaintiff instituted the present suit was bad, because notices under Sub-section 6 and 7 of the Revenue Sale Law were defective in certain particulars. For disposing of this ground it would be sufficient to say that this was not a ground declared or specified in the appeal which the plaintiff had made to the commissioner. The memorandum of appeal filed by the plaintiff before the commissioner and the judgment of the commissioner in that appeal have been placed before us. We find that amongst other points taken, all that was said with reference to the procedure adopted for the sale was that the notices had not been properly served, but there was no point taken that notices were in any way defective. The wording of Section 33 of the Revenue Sale Law is very particular; and as worded, that section requires that the grounds should be declared and sp...
Sitaram Poddar and ors. Vs. Hariram Poddar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.24
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff that he be furnished with particulars of various statements made in a petition asking for the transfer of a suit filed in the Howrah Court to this Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.2. The defendant takes the point that I have no jurisdiction to direct particulars and that by reason of the language of Order VI, Rule 1, read with Rule 4 of the same order particulars can only be directed of allegations contained in a plaint or written statement.3. I am reasonably clear that under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, I am entitled to interfere and direct particulars if I consider that a litigant is substantially embarrassed owing to lack of precision in a petition or affidavit. I do not, however, think it necessary to examine the petition in detail from this point of view but the defendants will disregard the plaintiffs' request for particulars at their own risk. What I mean to say is this: When the application...
In Re: Victor Judah and anr. Vs. Nissim Aaron Judah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1937Cal58
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant for an order under Order 25, Rule 1(3), Civil P.C., asking that the plaintiffs do within a time to be fixed by the Court give security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by the defendant. There are two plaintiffs: a minor, who is described as Victor Judah alias Victor Day, and his mother Elizabeth Day. The story in the plaint is that the infant plaintiff is the illegitimate son of the defendant by the female plaintiff, and that in January 1935 the defendant promised to make a settlement of Rs. 30,000 for the future maintenance and education of the infant plaintiff by paying that sum to the female plaintiff, together with all arrears within a month thereafter, and to pay the future maintenance of the infant plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 100 a month. On this basis the plaintiffs pra(SIC) a decree for Rupees 30 000 and for Rs. 10,000, the latter sum being by way of arrears of maintenance fr...
Aparna Prosad Chunder Vs. Chairman, Garulia Municipality, and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal123
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of R.C. Mitter, J., and it raises a question with regard to the interpretation of Section 18, Bengal Municipal Act 1932. The question is whether in Sub-section (1) of Section 18, Clauses (1) and (2) are to be read conjunctively or disjunctively: in other words, whether when the Local Government takes action under Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) it is at the same time bound to take action under Clause (2). Mitter, J., agreeing with the trial Court and disagreeing with the first appellate Court, has held that the clauses are to be read disjunctively. That view is challenged in this Letters Patent appeal.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the preparation of the electoral roll of the Garulia Municipality was contrary to the provisions of Section 18. It appears that the plaintiff has been entered as a voter in a certain ward of this Municipality. By Notification No. 7017-M of 14th December 1933 the Local G...
Mrinalini Debi Vs. Harlal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal339
Cunliffe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was commenced on 18th September 1931 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Alipore. It was an action for the recovery of a sum of money which comprised both capital and interest upon a mortgage bond and it may be stated at once that of the amount claime which was Rs. 3,238 odd the principal loan only amounted to Rs. 800. It was for an old debt going back as far as the year 1919, and the balance of the amount claimed was for compound interest at about 12 per cent. The learned Judge gave his judgment in the month of December 1933. Then it went up to the lower appellate Court where the judgment was delivered in April 1934. From that judgment an appeal to this Court was preferred. The question of the rate of interest was the real dispute between the parties, and the judgment of the Court of first instance shows, and also the judgment of the lower appellate Court, which is a very short one, demonstrates that this question o...
Aparna Prasad Chunder Vs. Chairman, Garulia Municipality and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.749
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of R.C. Mitter, J., and it raises a question with regard to the interpretation of Section 18, Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The question is whether in Sub-section (1) of Section 18, Clauses (1) and (2) are to be read conjunctively or disjunctively: in other words, whether when the Local Government takes action under Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) it is at the same time bound to take action under Clause (2). Mitter, J., agreeing with the trial Court and disagreeing with the first Appellate Court, has held that the clauses are to be read disjunctively. That view is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the preparation of the electoral roll of the Garulia Municipality was contrary to the provision of Section 18. It appears that the plaintiff has been entered as a voter in a certain ward of this Municipality. By Notification No. 7017-M of December 14, 1933, the Local G...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »