Kolkata Court July 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.
Ahad Bux Jamadar Vs. Kinkar Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal640,158Ind.Cas.590
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application for execution of a decree passed by the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, on 28th June 1929. The decree passed by the Small Cause Court was an instalment decree; and an instalment in accordance with the terms of the decree was paid by the judgment-debtor on 18th August 1930. The application for execution of the decree giving rise to this appeal was made by the decree-holder on 3rd November 1933. An objection was raised on behalf of the judgment.debtor to the execution of the decree, and it was asserted on the side of the judgment-debtor that the application for execution was barred by limitation. It appears that an application was made by the decree-holder to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, on 27th February 1932, and the question before the Court below was whether a further period of limitation would run from the date of the order passed on the said application for transmission of the decree for execution.2. On the materials there can be ...
BasiruddIn Sarkar Vs. Elahi Bux Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal645,158Ind.Cas.585
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application purported to have been made under Section 151, Civil P.C., but was substantially one under Section 47 of the Code. The appellant in this Court secured a decree against the respondent on 23rd July 1929, for Rs. 729-8-0. The decree so obtained was put into execution on 25th September 1931, and on 16th November 1931 full satisfaction of the decree was entered on an application filed in Court. Thereafter the application giving rise to this appeal was filed by the decree-holder alleging that the petition entering satisfaction of the decree was filed in Court owing to fraud, coercion and undue influence practised by the judgment-debtor, and it was prayed that the execution proceedings started on 25th September 1931, might be allowed to be reopened. The application for reopening the proceedings, in execution was opposed by the judgment-debtor; and the question for consideration in the case before the Court of execution were whether the applicati...
Kamal Krishna Sircar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal636,158Ind.Cas.204
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellant was convicted of sedition under 8. 124-A, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The speech in which he made the remarks complained of was delivered at Shradhananda Park on 22nd November 1934. There was a meeting of the Bengal Youth League, and there was a red banner with hammer, sickle and star. The audience were composed mostly of Bengali youths of the student community and a number of speeches were made.3. The accused moved a resolution, expressing emphatic condemnation of Government legislation as being calculated to gag the working-class movement in India, in declaring the Communist party of India and various trade unions and labour organizations illegal, while anti-working class organizations like the Indian National Congress and the Congress Socialist party had not been banned and had been allowed to prosecute their aims of sabotaging the real class struggle for emanicipating the toiling masses of India. ...
Kali Kumari Baisnabi Vs. Mono Mohini Baisnabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal748
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff who was fortunate in winning in the trial Court has preferred this appeal against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Mymensingh, passed on appeal, by which her suit has been dismissed. The suit is on a promissory note executed by the defendant in her favour on the 4th Assar 1338=19th June 1931, for the re-payment of Rs. 500 with interest at the rate of Rs. 37 per cent. per annum. The plaintiff recites the following facts in her plaint: (1) that she took a lease of a house belonging to the defendant on 14th Assar 1336=28th June 1929, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50; (2) that she deposited Rs. 600 with the defendant; (3) that the contract was that on her vacating the house the said money was to be returned to her; (4) that she left the house in Jaistha l338=June 1931, and the defendant took possession. There was then an adjustment of accounts between her and the defendant; the rent due for Bysack and Jaistha 1338 was deducted and the su...
indu Bhusan Roy Choudhury Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal707,159Ind.Cas.443
Henderson, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the petitioner calling upon the Secretary of State for India in Council to show cause why the petitioner should not be granted a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector a certain sum paid as court-fees on a plaint. The facts which require to be noted are as follows: The petitioner is the common manager of a certain estate in the district of Bakargunj. His predecessor instituted a suit for rent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna: the plaint was insufficiently stamped; several adjournments were granted in order to enable the plaintiff to pay the deficit but eventually the plaint was rejected on 20th July 1933. Then on 13th March 1934 the petitioner applied to pay the deficit court-fees and he was given five days within which to do so. The Subordinate Judge then restored the suit to the file, purporting to act under Section 151, Civil P.C. One of the defendants then obtained a rule from this Court, which was ev...
Bengal Provincial by. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Kanta De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal564,165Ind.Cas.371
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the Bengal Provincial Railway Company Limited, defendant 1, against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dated 29th June 1933 in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for damages and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant company from digging burrow pits or deepening them. The plaintiffs have got a decree for damages amounting to Rs. 10 and their prayer for injunction has also been granted; hence this appeal by the company. The facts are these: the defendant company have burrow pits on their own land. The pit in question has been in existence from a very long time. The plaintiffs had their but near the burrow pit on their land, but in the year 1927 or 1928 they replaced their but by a masonry building. The building was raised close to the pit. In February 1930, the men of the defendant company deepened the pit, but at the time of the digging operations, admittedly no damage was caused to the plaintif...
Sitaram Khemka Vs. Arthur Charsley Thomas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal132
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application to commit Mr. Arthur Charsley Thomas for contempt of Court. Mr. Thomas was the defendant in an action for dissolution of partnership. Dissolution has been decreed and a reference has been held in which the accounts of the partnership are being considered and the assets determined. The partnership traded under the name of Golden Reef Mining Syndicate, and its operative headquarters were at Patkum in the District of Manbhum. In December 1932 Mr. Thomas and one Teluram Agarwalla started prospecting for gold and in February and March 1933 they acquired prospecting licenses from the guardian of the minor zamindar of the Patkum estate. In December 1933 Teluram left, and a partnership was started between Thomas and the plaintiff in this suit Sitaram Khemka. Thomas was to have 2/3rd share and Sitaram 1/3rd. On 20th February 1934 prospecting licenses were renewed, and some eight months later machinery was in operation at Patkum. It is suggested that on a...
Kalooram Agarwalla Vs. Jonistha Lal Chakrabarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal349,163Ind.Cas.167
Panckridge, J.1. This is a suit by the assignee and endorsee of a certain promissory note. In the plaint it is stated that on 2nd June 1931 a sum of Rs. 1,729-13-3 was due and owing from the defendants to one Gazadhar Marwari and that the defendants agreed to pay interest on the sum at the rate of Rs. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem. As security for payment of the sum they executed on that date a promissory note in Gazadar Marwari's favour. On 1st June 1934, Gazadar Marwari in Calcutta assigned the debt and endorsed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration. There is said to be due and owing at the time of suit a sum of Rs. 2,673-1-6. The note in question is signed by defendant 1 purporting to sign on his own behalf and on behalf of defendant 2 who is his brother. The suit was instituted on 1st June 1934. In the plaint the defendants are described as both residing at Anara in the district of Manbhum, and it is common ground that the promissory note was execute...
Mahadeb Pal Vs. Sibu Charan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.721
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject-matter of this suit is a part of a non-transferable holding, namely, the land described in schedule kha of the plaint, which is a part of the land of schedule ka, which represents the entire holding. Defendant No. 10 is The Fort Gloster Jute ., the admitted landlord, and the recorded tenant was one Rup Chand Pal. Rup Chand sold the land to one Becharam Pal who again sold it to one Tarini Charan Sardar, on November 16, 1901. The defendant company did not recognize either Becharam or Tarini as their tenant. Tarini died sometime before the year 1921, and the finding is that he died without any male issue, leaving him surviving two widows A modi and Nistarini alias Subasmoyee. Neither Amodi nor Nistarini was recognised as tenant by the landlord company. On April 26, 1921, Amodi claiming to be entitled to the whole of the property left by Tarini, sold the holding to defendant No. 5. The conveyance was in the names of defendants Nos. 5 and 7; but it is admitted ...
Jogendra Nath Gorai Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal621,158Ind.Cas.385
Jack, J.1. The appellant Jogendra Kumar Gorai has been convicted under Section 46(a), Bengal Excise Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The facts of the case are that he was found at 10 o'clock at night by Babu Mon Mohan Banerji, an Excise Sub-Inspector in a room at No. 3 Ratan Babu Bara Bagan Busti along with Panchanan who has already been convicted of an offence of distilling illicit liquor. Distillation was actually taking place in the room and when the Sub-Inspector appeared, both of them tried to escape but they were seized. In the room were found a full set of apparatus for manufacturing liquor from methylated spirit, 3 gallons of illicit liquor and other articles. The accused's defence is that he was there by mere accident. Panchanan was related to him. He had gone to visit a neighbour of Panchanan and then to see Panchanan when the Sub-Inspector came in. The Courts below have found him guilty on the circumstantial evidence. Panchanan admitted his guilt an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »