Kolkata Court June 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.
Ballav Dass Vs. Mohan Lal Sadhu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal237
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case the petitioner Ballav Das who is a Director of the Cash Insurance Bank Ltd. has been convicted under Clauses (4) of Section 32, Cl, 6 of Section 77 and CI (4) of Section 134, Indian Companies Act, and sentenced to pay a fine. The Company commenced business under a commencement certificate on 16th May 1933. The statutory meeting of the Company ought to have been held on or before the 15th November 1933. Admittedly this was not held, and there can be no doubt that the petitioner knew that the statutory meeting had not been held within the time mentioned in Section 77 of the Act. The statutory report required to be forwarded under Clause (2) of Section 77 was not forwarded to any member of the Company, and there can be no doubt that the petitioner knew of the said fact. Although the prosecution was started on 14th April 1935, the register of shareholders was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 32, and there cannot be any doubt on t...
Kumud Nath Das Saha and ors. Vs. Government Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal347,163Ind.Cas.222
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the learned Senior Government Pleader of this Court to show cause why the prayer of the petitioner asking for refund of the excess court-fees should not be granted to the petitioner or such other order or further orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. It appears that the petitioners who were the plaintiffs instituted a suit for enhancement of rent under the provisions of Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act, and they paid court-fees both in the Court below as in this Court on the amount which was claimed on the basis of enhancement of rent. They did not pay court-fees on the difference between the original rate of rent and the enhanced rent claimed. It now appears from a decision in Prosannadeb Roikat v. Purna Chandra Saha 1934 Cal 674 that a suit for enhancement of the rent of a tenure, there being no prayer for recovery of rent for any period would be governed by Article 1, Schedule 1, Court-fees Act, and the court-fee payable on the plain...
Madras and Southern Maharatta Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Shing Deepsing and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.907
ORDERLodge, J.1. This Rule arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. The plaintiff's case was that 214 bags of tobacco were booked from. Nepani, an out-station of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway, to Shalimar, on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway, and that owing to the misconduct and gross negligence of the Railway Officers, 37 of the bags of tobacco were damaged by water. He accordingly claimed damage with interest. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the servants of the Railway Company were guilty of gross negligence and that the plaintiff was entitled to the value of the tobacco damaged but not to interest and his claim was decreed in part. Hence this Rule. It is urged that the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, was wrong in applying the law that the assumed that the responsibility of the Railway Company was the responsibility of a carrier under the Carriers Act, that he wrongly found that the parties were not bound by the Risk Note...
Baidya Nath Biswas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal741,159Ind.Cas.523
Jack, J.1. Appeal No. 891. In this case, the appellant Baidyanath Biswas, Managing Director of the Federal Insurance Co. Ltd., was charged under Section 282, Indian Companies Act, with having prepared a false balance-sheet. The section reads as follows:Whoever in any return, report, certificate, balance-sheet or other document, required by or for the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act, wilfully makes a statement false in any material particular, knowing it to be false, shall be punishable under this section.2. The prosecution case is that certain items on the expenditure side of the balance-sheet were false, The establishment charge actually shown in the balance-sheet was Rs. 120, whereas the actual establishment charge during the year was Rs. 1,020, the balance of Rs 900 being credited to organisation expenses which amounted to Rs. 2,257. Certain other correct items of expenditure were also credited to organisation expenses. The result of this was that the company were able...
Raghupati Chatterjee Vs. Panchanani Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal609,158Ind.Cas.33
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1334 to 1337 B.S. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. Hence the present appeal. It is admitted that the property originally belonged to one Nrisingha Pada Saha. Two rival claimants came upon the field as being purchasers of the interest of Nrisingha Pada Saha, namely Nrisingha Hari Das and the present plaintiff Raghupati Chatteriee. The defendants were tenants on the land. In the year 1913 Raghupati instituted a suit for rent against them. That suit was decreed by consent. The result of this decree was to establish firmly the relationship of landlord and tenant between Raghupati and the defendants. Accordingly Raghupati the appellant before me would ordinarily be entitled to recover rent from the defendants in respect of the suit land. Other circumstances however intervened. The very next year on 2nd January 1914, Nrisingha Hari Das instituted a suit aga...
Abed HossaIn Mia and ors. Vs. Abdur Rahaman Saha Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal631,158Ind.Cas.567
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a decree-holders' appeal in an execution case. They are five in number, one of whom Abdul Rauf Choudhury is a minor and is represented by a co-decree-holder who is a certificated guardian. The appellants obtained a decree against the respondents on 21st June 1928. The execution proceedings out of which this appeal arises were started by them admittedly after three years had expired from the date of the decree. The judgment-debtors objected to the execution on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The executing Court accepted the objection of the judgment-debtors and ordered the execution case to be dismissed. On appeal by the judgment-debtors to the lower appellate Court the learned Judge has affirmed that order. Hence the present appeal by the decree-holders. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the Courts belows are wrong in holding that the execution is barred by limitation. It is argued that one of the decree-holders is st...
Dhirendra Nath Poddar and ors. Vs. Hemangini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal610,158Ind.Cas.406
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is a matter relating to the sufficiency of the stamp with reference to the security bond which we directed should be executed by the Receiver for a sum of Rs. 10,000(Rupees ten thousand) in a certain appeal from original decree. A Receiver was appointed by this Court and according to the directions given he filed the security bond stamping it with a stamp of Rs. 7/8. After the document had been filed in office the Assistant Registrar on a note from Mr. Ram Taran Chatterjee felt doubtful whether this particular instrument should come under Article 57, Stamp Act. If Article 57 does apply to the security bond the stamp paid seems to be sufficient. On the other hand Mr. Mohini Nath Bose, the Stamp Reporter, was of opinion that the stamp was insufficient and he relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras. High Court in Amirthammal v. Maddalakarun, 1920 Mad 939, which held that when a Receiver is appointed and furnishes security in immovable property he is t...
Mohammed Ali Khan Vs. Kanailal Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal625,159Ind.Cas.767
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title and for recovery of possession in a plot of land 3 bighas 6 cot. 12 ch. 29 sqr. feet in area in Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta. The two plaintiffs are sons of one Satya Charan Haldar. Satya's mother and Sushila Devi were the two wives of one Nagendra who had by the latter another son named Sailendra. Sailendra died unmarried leaving Sushila as his heir. The plaintiffs as reversioners on the death of Sushila instituted this suit on the allegation that Sushila with a view to injure the reversionary interest of Satya, with whom she was on terms of bitter enmity, had granted a lease in respect of the property of which the defendants are the present holders.2. The history of the lease is as follows: Sailendra died in 1907 and thereafter in 1912 there was a suit for partition between Satya and Sushila as the result of which the land in suit fell to Sushila's share. In July 1918 Sushila contracted a loan of Rs...
Amirul Islam Vs. Sarada Kumar Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.249
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal and the suit out of which it arises is a sum of Rs. 10-14-0, i.e., a sum below Rs. 50.2. The defendants Nos. to 4 were admittedly tenants of the plaintiffs. Towards the end of the year 1337, the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 sold their share in the holding to defendant No. 8. After the transfer both defendants Nos. 1 and 8 were joint tenants of the holding. The defendant No. 8 by the document of transfer Ex. A undertook to pay the arrears of rent due in respect of the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, that is to say the defendant No. 8 only undertook to pay a part of the rent due to the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The landlord instituted the present suit for rent of the years 1334 to 1337 B.S. The defence of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was that they were not liable for the said arrears, but defendant No. 8 was, and in support of their defence they relied upon Section 73 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as amended in 1928. The trial Court held that d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›